Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 8 July 10 >

July 9

[edit]

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

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

AetoliaMud

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Imperian

[edit]

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

  • Delete this and all others like it. (Is there an echo in here or is it just me?) Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)
  • Delete, most MUDs aren't notable. Please contribute to WP:WEB if you have an opinion about this. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 08:18 (UTC)
  • Delete - Other games the company like Achaea were notable muds, but this is not. --Mysidia 9 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

User:Cognition/gallery

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Afro-Mexican

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

SqueakBox, So, we must delete the article about US, and England because there is an article about anglo-saxon?. Of course not, We are speaking of very diferent things. Latin-american and hispanic are cultural terms, withouth regard of country or race. The history of black people in Mexico is very diferent from the history of Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, or Brazil. Honestly i see to option, or have an article on the history of black people outside africa, that would include subchater regarding each contry.. or keep with indepndient articles, like afro-american, afro-cuban, afrom-exican , etc. I found the clasification of "afro-latinamerican" too artificial.
  • While the article needswork, I think it is a potentially viable article. Keep - Guettarda 9 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
  • Keep. Your logic is very flawed: there IS a Hispanics article, and even if there weren't, it wouldn't represent a value judgment that Hispanics are inferior to Afro-Mexicans; it would just mean no one had written one yet. Sorry for repeating points from the Afro-Latin American VfD; I will also repeat the point that SqueakBox should stop making accusations of racism. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 00:52 (UTC)
The hispanic article is about people in the US. BTW I haven't accused anyone of rascism. We should not veer away from discussing rascist attitudes on Wikipedia. Please don't try to censure that, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 00:59 (UTC)
True, the hispanic is about people in the US, so was Afro-Latino and you merged it into Afro-Latin American which is about people in Latin America. You didn't accuse anyone in particular but wrote "Comment. Latin American redirects to Latin America. If Latin Americans aren't deserving of an article for what reason do we need an Afro-American article. Sounds rascist to me, SqueakBox July 8, 2005 18:39 (UTC)" at the Vfd page. I assure you nobody is trying to denigrate Afro-Latin Americans by writing an article about them. --Vizcarra 9 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)
  • Keep. Distinct community - recently in the news objecting to the Memin Pinguin postage stamp. -- BD2412 talk July 9, 2005 03:19 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major ethnic groups deserve articles. If there are problems with the article, it should certainly be fixed, but it would be a serious omission not to have an article on this topic. To me, this is a really clear case. Would you also VfD Malaysian Chinese and Mizrahi Jew?--Pharos 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
  • Keep. There will be (and should be) some overlap between the two, but this needn't be merged. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 04:26 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable community. Merger not necessary. carmeld1 22:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A no-brainer to me; of couse we should keep. Moncrief 06:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A clearly distinct and forgotten community that deserves its own article. Asereje 19:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Wikipedia itself is only a few years old and articles are continuing to grow. There are far more obscure articles that Wikipedia is not considering for deletion. For example: Lepontic language is not considered for deletion. WHy then should a living group of people now be ignored on WIkipedia. Squeakbox, your logic is biased (not flawed, but biased). If the mere mention of "Afro" or "Black" people, or culture, or identity even raises the possibility of you considering it to be racist, then it's obvious that your point of view is far from objective. The Black experience in the world has been stratified since the European focus on stratifing Blacks (for discrimination, slavery, etc) began. Therefore the end result is real, and we should not pretend to have a polarized comparison to "whites" or "others". The Black experience in mexico is worth expanding as for merely academic use this particular stratified group of people are being characterized right now on a silly postage stamp to look like gorillas. Memin Penguin should be enough reason for you to realize that it's necessary to keep the article.

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew tong

[edit]

Vanity. Joyous (talk) July 9, 2005 00:15 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity, anti-vanity, something like that. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
  • Delete - Until I get further information on this page, I will say this is a vanity page.--Anti-Anonymex2 9 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would be nice if these kinds of articles could be speedied. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:56 (UTC)
    • Actually, re-reading this, it's definitely an attack page, and ought to be speedied as such. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:58 (UTC)
  • Speedy - Why are we even wasting time on things like this? --IByte 9 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)
  • Speedy as obvious vandalism. Gazpacho 9 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

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

The UK Board

[edit]

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

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:51 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's lame. — (81.86.186.31's 6th edit.)
  • Speedy delete drini ☎ 9 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
  • Delete and condemn the article and all its contributors (save for the VfDer). -Splash 9 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
  • Delete all traces. Bad, bad and bad. It is the perfect exact opposite of encyclopedic. And bad. --A D Monroe III 9 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
  • Delete agreed with the above
  • Delete. Article is, um, cheesy. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 9 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
  • Delete without honor or humanity. ShadowMan1od 9 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)
  • For the love of god, just delete it before it makes my brain collapse in on itself Cyclone49 9 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikeplokta 9 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like vain patent nonsense to me. tregoweth July 9, 2005 17:14 (UTC)
  • Delete- not because I got mad reading it, I want to save others going my way.--Bhadani 9 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, non notable, written so horrifically that it makes reality TV look intelligent, and POV beyond all knowing

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

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

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

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

Stonecold

[edit]

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

  • Delete - Definitely seems like a hoax. Stilgar135 9 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stone Cold Steve Austin. Gazpacho 9 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Gazpacho. Pburka 9 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. I've never heard of "Northern England" (as opposed to "Yorkshire" and the like), so a hoax, and even if not, it's NN. --A D Monroe III 9 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
    • Comment: Northern England is a term in use, (for the north of England surprisingly.) Of course, it would be more useful if it did include the county. Sonic Mew July 9, 2005 10:54 (UTC)
  • Delete, mapquest.co.uk reports non-existence. This is not the purpose of redirects. You've never heard of where,A D Monroe III? It's that little place in between Scotland and Southern England. :-> Splash 9 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
Okay, guys, I relent. I'm sure that Northern England is a fine place, full of good people, and I won't put Northern England up for VFD.  ;) Thanks for all the helpful comments, and sorry for starting a side discussion. I just meant it seemed like an odd way to describe a real town -- like saying "Las Vegas, Western US" instead of "Las Vegas, Nevada". --A D Monroe III 20:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Victor augusto nieto righetti

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

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

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

Wang ba dan

[edit]

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

  • Delete as per nominator -mysekurity 9 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
  • Keep, like fuck. Kappa 9 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)
  • Keep, but please expand. Ditto on Kappa's comment. Redwolf24 9 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wang ba dan is obviously different from fuck. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 9 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
  • Delete, like fuck, except not notable in English. Foreign dicdef. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it already transwikied to Wiktionary? (Conditional) keep iff it is expanded to include encyclopaedic information such as its sociolinguistic implications. — Instantnood July 9, 2005 18:04 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am quite sceptical that it is wikipedia material and has enough content to the extent of other profane words like fuck.--Huaiwei 21:11, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. "王八旦" returns less than 600 hits on Google. —Tokek 21:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Instantnood. Keep the article if someone can expand it to include further analysis of the cultural origins, usage, and ramifications of the insult. Translations of the term, usually as "turtle egg", appear frequently in English-language texts about China. Googling "turtle egg Chinese insult" alone generates 36700 hits. However, many of the references on- and off-line fail to give any direct explanations of the meaning, etymology, connotations of illegitimacy ("hatching" from a turtle's egg), and what this divulges about the paramount importance of family and ancestral lineage in Chinese culture. For an example, if I remember correctly, Adeline Yen Mah's bestselling memoir "Falling Leaves" recalls how the Red Guards called her Aunt "turtle egg" while ransacking her house but only indicates to the English-language reader that this is a grave insult and does not discuss the baggage attached to the term. Future editors of the article should mention notorious public incidents (and political fallout thereof) in which the insult has been deployed, for instance, media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai's denunciation of Chinese Premier Li Peng as a "turtle's egg with zero IQ." [4].--Defrosted 06:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Tewu

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Guitar weaving

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Goldeneye Level Citadel

[edit]

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

  • Delete copyvio. Even if it wasn't, the information might be more useful in a Wikibook article on Goldeneye 007. Jaxl 9 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Jaxl, perhaps merge, as sugguested? -mysekurity 9 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
  • Delete. If K1Bond007 says there's nothing worth merging, than there's nothing worth merging. -- BD2412 talk July 9, 2005 03:21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I can see a place for this article, in its current state it is nowhere near Wikipedia-ready, --Dave2 9 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio, nothing worth merging. JamesBurns 06:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Wigamog inn

[edit]

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

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

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

Guo

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Country_boy

[edit]

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

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

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

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

David tunney

[edit]

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

  • So what if it's vain, you'd have to be some loser to go out of your way to delete this page. — (83.70.29.12's only contributions are to vanity articles, VfD pages, and vandalism.)
  • Yes but i must admit chilli mix is cool Joy — (This bit of nonsense added by 212.2.172.137.)
  • Delete. Goatstown may not even qualify as notable, so its 15 year-old "deputy ruler" is certainly NN. Oh, and a hoax. --A D Monroe III 9 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
  • "deputy ruler of the town" = patent nonsense, delete. Gazpacho 9 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
  • Speedy not even that funny, I don't think.... -mysekurity 9 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN --Spangineer (háblame) July 9, 2005 03:46 (UTC)
  • Delete, all is vanity. Antandrus (talk) 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity/hoax. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:28 (UTC)
  • Delete, garbage. —Tokek 21:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The anonymous user from Ireland appears to be vandalizing Wikipedia from multiple IP addresses:

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

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

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

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

Sky Lopez

[edit]

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

(original nomination and discussion follows)

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

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

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

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

Gypsysoft

[edit]

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

  • What exactly is this nonsense? Delete ColoradoZ July 9, 2005 02:38 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whatever it isn't it is unverifiable and unencyclopedic. -Splash 9 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
    • Correct.. I didn't write the unserious and unencyclopedic stuff. If you want verification, you can have my IRC log. Jchillerup 9 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article indicates that the game started on 8 July, 2005. 1 day is not long enough to establish notability. Pburka 9 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Pburka. Jaxl 9 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
  • Delete
  • Delete. Started YESTERDAY? C'mon. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like this game completely imploded today. Having a Wikipedia entry for this was a joke in the first place.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Present day fashion

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fly Gun

[edit]

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

  • Keep and rewrite. Fly guns seem to be real devices, with ~4000 google hits. An article about them could be encyclopedic. Pburka 9 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
    Redirect to User:Binadot's fly swatter. Pburka 9 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Even if the topic is encyclopedic, this treatment is so bad it's funny. -- BD2412 talk July 9, 2005 03:22 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think its a BJAODN, because it's not that funny, but its vanity, and pretty stupid, if you ask me --mysekurity 9 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to fly swatter, which I just created, having been surprised to find no such article yet in existence. I included what I consider to be a decent NPOV section on fly guns (and similar products). This kind of thing really doesn't merit its own article. I don't find it particularly funny or worth saving (all of its humor is taken verbatim from the website), so I'd just delete the content. No need to move it to BJAODN. Binadot 9 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
  • Keep Rewrite and BJAODN the original. Cyclone49 9 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense/possible copyvio. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:32 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nuff said --193.190.162.140 14:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shameful plug. SneakyCroat July 16,2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

CMS Websites

[edit]

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

  • Agreed, Delete, as there is no redeming quality to merge - mysekurity 9 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks like a duplicate that also happens to feel like an ad (the links to the "first CMS" at the bottom set off my warning bells). --FreelanceWizard 9 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mindmatrix 19:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CMS Encore Pro looks related and also smells like an ad. Anyone care to take a look and perhaps VfD it as well? --Dmcdevit 00:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Doorway Productions

[edit]
  • no content; links to a gothic-themed adult site. should be deleted.
  • This unsigned nomination was made on 26 June 2005 by user:Lackofrepose. The nomination was not properly formatted and appeared to be a comment on a previous discussion. I am reformatting the nomination and restarting the discussion clock. No vote. Rossami (talk) 9 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because it links to a gothic-themed adult site doesn't mean it should be deleted. The important thing is, has it produced any notable films? Purplefeltangel 9 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)
  • Delete. IMDb has a page that indicates they have made 3 non-notable films (none of them have any votes on IMDb, and 2 were released in 2005 with one in 2004). IMDb does not appear to indicate that they are still in production or anything, so they've just not been noticed. There are only 118 unique Google hits. Non-notable at the moment. If their erotic horror movies take off, they can come back of course. -Splash 9 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notable films. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:33 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated above -mysekurity 21:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can films be non-notable if IMDb has noted their existence? Keep. Grace Note 01:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable advertising. JamesBurns 06:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Drunk idiots

[edit]

I've tried finding this group on the net, with limited success. According to the article it is a released artist, but "Drunk idiots" Chris Loop only gives 21 Google results [6]. Unless notability can be established i'd suggest delete. Hedley 16:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • This was another nomination from 26 June which was not properly formatted and which appeared to be a comment in the previous discussion. Reformatting and restarting the discussion clock. No vote. Rossami (talk) 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  • Delete, then go vote to expand the speedy guidelines. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)
  • Delete: User page for self promotion -Husnock 9 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, and the page even states they "have released less than 4 minutes of music in over 3 years". Zap it -mysekurity 21:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Li lonp

[edit]

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

  • He is just as notable as, say, Ceciliantas . Keep 5th edit by User:Eowaraldur
    • That you for pointing out that someone had recreated that article. It was deleted via VfD some time back. I do agree that this is almost as notable as Ceciliantas; in other words, delete. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 04:37 (UTC)
  • Eliminating this entry would be like eliminating George Harrison's entry for Beatles fans. MMORPGs are a substantial force on the internet and its notable personalities must be documented for all of eternity. I say keep! - Sunlapse User's first edit.
  • Delete fictional vanity - augh. CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. And article seems somewhat confused. Is Li lonp male or female? Pburka 9 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
  • You have got to be kidding. Delete. --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
  • This is a very important character in the world of Azeroth. Deleting the entry on Li lonp would be akin to destroying the constitution. -- Willie155 (talk · contribs)'s only edit.
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nuff said. Dusik 9 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
  • KEEP - what else is Wiki for if not useless information? :D Dimble ThriceFoon This vote represents 82.153.137.104 (talk · contribs)'s only two edits.
    • Useful information. Delete. Leithp July 9, 2005 08:27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. And if I don't get to put my MMO characters up, which are impressive fake entities, why should this guy? :) --FreelanceWizard 9 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't resist voting delete on sock-puppeted VfDs about made up 'characters' that exist only because of a few thousand lines of computer code. -Splash 9 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)
  • Delete, completely ridiculous. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:35 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with all above reasons for delete.--Bhadani 9 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fictional vanity, whatever that means. - Thatdog 9 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, and just plain stupid at the same time. Boyinabox 9 July 2005
  • Delete -- it's articles like these that make me ashamed to play video games -mysekurity 21:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Sabrina Krievins and Erika Krievins

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Deven

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Nadro

[edit]

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

  • Speedy Delete as Hoax I may be wrong but the only google hit for Nasos Drosopoulos + Football is a site for "McDonalds fantasy Football"--Porturology 9 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)
  • I am the guy who marked the article for speedy deletion. The person is real, and he is a friend of mine. He is no coach though ;-) I guess somebody wanted to play a trick on him. --Gakrivas 9 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as Hoax, as Gakrivas proves it is only a hoax, mysekurity 21:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 06:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

The Magic Dudes

[edit]

Discussion/Votes

[edit]

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

Comment: Also see this VFD for more of the same. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEPThis article should be kept as the List of magicians has now been put into alphabetical order and thus The Magic Dudes appears in alphabetical order (under M for Magic Dudes... originally slotted as D for Dudes, which was why it followed David Copperfield). As noted in the article, Channel 31 was just where the first pilot showed, and so what if it was community TV? The TV station still had to request the pilot and decide to air it.MagicFan 9 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotion for non-notable magicians. The whole point of public access is that anyone can get a show. BTW, "Magic Dudes" would go under "M", because "Dudes" isn't a last name. — Gwalla | Talk 9 July 2005 06:31 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note Channel 31 just aired the pilot. OTHER television stations requested the series. I also beg to differ on the comments made regarding Channel 31 and community television in general. I believe the comments made probably come from people who aren't invloved in the television industry (neither am I BTW), have never had a show on TV and have probably not seen the series mentioned or the television station in question (BTW I have at least seen both). In general, a lot of programming on community TV comes from shows previously aired on commercial networks (e.g. look at Channel 31 in Melbourne). There are numerous articles throughout Wikipedia mentioning community stations all over the world. I also do not believe that it can be that easy to get a show on TV (I can't say I know anyone who has a show on TV). I personally think a 12 part series that has been shown across a country as big as Australia is very noteworthy. BTW, Magic Dudes are now listed under M.MagicFan 9 July 2005 08:51 (UTC)
    • Please note that you are only to vote once. Any other comments (like further edits) may be signified using the Comment: tag. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 07:48 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity/advertisement. Postdlf 9 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Postdlf. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. No notable achievements as of yet... (heck, i've been on public television a couple of times..) No real improvement through the edits... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 07:48 (UTC)
  • Keep They had their own series on TV. I think that makes them noteworthy of a mention. Wikipedia is a great resource of "Whos Who" and they obviously have a profile. Michael Douglas 9 July 2005 07:58 (UTC) This is the user's first edit. See [7]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)
  • No it's not... I just wasn't registered before!!Michael Douglas 01:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn / vanity. :Note, sockpuppetry already? <>Who?¿? 9 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)
  • Comment I reviewed all the info I could find on the subject, unfortunately, it's mostly self-promotion, that I found on the web, links on shopping sites pointing to their "unused" website. If at some time in the future, these guys become syndicated, then it may warrant an article. There is not enough information or content to support an article for a public broadcast channel show. As for the socketpuppets, I kind of feel bad, new user, getting their first article Vfd'd, and asking friends to help. Hard way to learn, but hopefully with more time on Wiki, will learn the rules and develop some good research and editing skills. I remain at delete. <>Who?¿? 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here come the delete dudes! Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 08:20 (UTC)
  • I had to look up what it meant, but I am offended what "Who" is suggesting. Michael Douglas 9 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
    • Then wuts with the influx of newbie votes? Logical explination = sockpuppetry of some sort. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 10:32 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself; I have edited many times but only just registered. I thought you had to register to vote and I felt strongly enough about this one to have a say.Michael Douglas 01:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then what IP address(es) did you use to make "past edits". --Madchester 04:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Comment: Stop the puppets already. Leave it up to the community to decide. If you want to make your case, do so by making yourself notable. But for now, leave it alone. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 10:32 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an unsollicited testimonial from a satisifed audience member. The Magic Dudes are certainly real and are widely known within the Australian magical entertainment industry.I want to believe... 9 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)Note:This user deleted his previous vote and voted again, along with deleting my comment. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 10:49 (UTC)
  • Did you ever consider a wide fan base?? Why shouldn't people new to Wikipedia have the opportunity to comment on what we think is important too? Maybe you need to reaquaint with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomersMichael Douglas 9 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)
    • If they truly had such a wide fan base, someone (a contributing wikipedia member that has shown good edits) would have heard of this group. Not to mention it needs press coverage. Plus, these sockpuppets ARE NOT helping your cause. I am not saying new wikipedians should not comment, but the fact that they got DIRECTLY to this VFD page suggest there is something fishy. I am not accusing the biting the newcomers as there have been no personal attacks or harsh critcism. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 10:54 (UTC)
comment: the user I want to believe... has been making random deletions to edits made to this page.[10]
  • COMMENT: Incl notes on precedent supporting article As The Magic Dudes was my first entry to Wikipedia, I am really miffed at what is going on here. I had had other "edits" on Wikipedia and added other magicians and acts etc. to the Magic entries. As you can no doubt guess, I am a huge fan of magic. I am really angry to see my hard work of adding links etc. has been deleted by people who have nothing to do with my entries and maybe aren't even magic fans at all (so how would they know anything about the topic). My thought in putting the post up in the first place was that these guys have been on TV, had their own series etc etc. It wasn't just a guest appearance on someone elses show... they had their OWN show. I thought that was pretty noteworthy as I haven't seen any other magicians on TV in Australia apart from the old favourites such as Copperfield and the arch enemy of magicians, The Masked Magician. When I put the entry up, I obviously told other magic fans about my entry so they could see what I had done. Before all I have ever been able to do is add information on magicians already named. This was my first new entry. To see it be called into question is turning me off the whole Wikipedia experience. I cannot be held responsible for some fans of the Magic Dudes going over board in their support of this entry and doing things they shouldn't be doing. I am thrilled however that word is spreading that people are trying to destroy my post and people are taking the time to not only come and look at my post but also to register to try and stop its destruction. To abuse them by calling them sockpuppets is just not warranted and I agree with Mr Douglas that new comers should be given the benefit of the doubt. They obviously new enough about the Magic Dudes to spend the time to register and vote and I think that speaks volumes as I found the whole process of learning Wikipedia less than easy. I have done my best to change the post to answer its criticisms, but just because you people from overseas haven't heard of some Australian magicians makes their achievements no less notable than of they had been Canadians... outside of the magic community, I doubt very much people in Australia have heard of Jay Sankey, but it makes him none the less a very notable magician. I am sure many more Canadians have heard of him, just as I suspect many laymen in Australia are familiar with the Magic Dudes, having seen them on TV. The Magic Dudes meet the requirements to be considered notable by precedent. Wikipedia states that an author is considered notable if they have had a book published. The Magic Dudes have had a TV show broadcast. Some people in their delete comments have stated that Channel 31 is not noteworthy, but for a television or radio station to be notable, Wikipedia says that it should have broadcast "at least regionally". Considering Channel 31 is established in most Australian states, I would think that is pretty notable. I therefore think there is precedent for my post. As an indication on the quality of talent shown on Channel 31, see the Wikipedia post on Rove McManus. If you look at his offical biography at http://www.rovelive.com/rove/current/bio.asp, you will see that he had a show on Channel 31 and sees it as important enough to include in his bio. And Rove is no light weight. In no less than 2002, 2003 and 2004 he won the Gold Logie award for the most popular personality on Australian television! Hardly a goldfish swimming in a bowl!!MagicFan 9 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
    • I can see why you might be miffed. However to carry out your miffed-ness by shameless repeat voting on your own article (or encouraging friends to) is an extremely good way to make the community want to delete it. Go back, retract the false votes (by striking them out with <s> and </s> and prove their notability in what remains of the 5 day VfD procedure. Otherwise be sure it will go down in flames. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
    • Note that rove has had national recognition and extends FAR beyond Channel 31 whilst the Magic Dudes seem limited to a very very local prespective. Also, anon IP's are allowed to vote on VFD and their votes are counted. But think about it, what are the chances that ALL these new users would come to this VfD first? Its really hard not to suspect sockpuppetry.... Plus, i'm not saying their votes don't count, in the end, it will be weighted by an admin who will close this vote. Again, please read WP:Importance and brush up on policy a little. Also, Channel 31 is not as notable as the major networks as it IS public access. Heck, there are lots of shows on my local public access station, most of which DO NOT deserve an article in an encyclopedia eg. http://www.thegeekshow.com/ its only syndicated in Alberta on Access. and Channel 31 broadcasts different things in different locations unlike nationally syndicated networks. That's a big difference, ultimately, public access focuses on local audiences and locally produced shows for most of their shows. Of this time, The Magic Dudes do not meet the WP criterion for notability. Until further press coverage/show expansion is achieved, they do not deserve a encyclopedia article. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN J E Bailey 9 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
  • Delete sockpuppet supported vote about non-notable magician that gets only relevant Google hits. AND THERE ARE TOO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
  • Comment This is probably overkill, as the direction this is going is pretty clear, but what the heck, I've got ten minutes until my cake comes out of the oven anyway.
  • On channel 31 right now is "On The Couch" and they are doing a special on the Espy Hotel. Never heard of it? That's because it's about two kilometers away from my house and it is a (really bloody fantastic) pub where mostly unsigned (but really bloody fantastic) bands play. After that is "Vasili's Garden", another good show, I like that Vasili, He sold me some good tomatoes this year, his nursery is like four blocks from my house. Who is he interviewing tonight? Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, that's Cosimo, he literally lives right across the street from me! Small world, man. (This, by the way is all completely true, I was watching it before I decided to come in here and write this.)
  • I watched Rove on 31 back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. I thought his show was great on then and it's shite now that Dave is gone. But if someone had put a Rove article up then, I'd have nominated it for VfD. Rove, you may have noticed, went on from channel 31 to do something else. And no one found his "31" roots important enough to add to his page until your edit of 12:57, 9 July 2005.
  • So when you guys sorry, those guys, go on to win a Gold Logie (as voted on by the reader of TV Week magazine) I'll vote keep.
Oh, I smell black forest. I'd better wrap up. AMagicianStoleMyPantsOnceAndNowIHateThemAll 9 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)
  • I went and followed the Rove link. Why would you want to delete Australia's most popular TV talent of three years running (I thought he had won in 2005 too, but maybe we haven't had that award yet)? Anyway, I followed all the links including the one to Rove's biography. Turns out that Rove actually mentions Channel 31 himself. I think this has more to do with you hating magicians than anything else. I read an article by Jay Sankey once (yes, I've heard of him even though he is Canadian) and he mentioned the "magician haters". IMHO, if you aren't into magic as an art form, then why are you commenting on the noteworthiness or otherwise of a particular magician (or in this case two?). Have you heard of Jay Sankey, or Brad Christian, Oz Perlman, Darwin Ortiz???? I can well understand why fans of magic are getting upset on here. Michael Douglas 01:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaron was saying that IF there was an article on Rove back when he was ONLY on Channel 31, he would have VFDed that page, but Rove has had much more noteriety than that. And we are not "hating magicians" as you put it. We are simply following the set Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter if they're magicians, or artist, or scientist or CEOs, we still apply the same standards. Jay Sankey shows notability as his trick was performed by Copperfield, an OBVIOUS credit to his talents and meaning he has achieved a degree of notability to be noticed in the magic world and general public. The Magic Dudes have put their own show on public TV (heck, gimme a couple hundred bucks and i can do the same thing) and produced their OWN DVD thats not mass distributed. Doesn't quite make the cut. And it doesn't matter if we've heard of them or not, we're judging on the basis of the article. That's a fair judgement for an encyclopedia. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentPheweee!!! read a few of those things up there...I think certain wannabe I.T. geeks are taking themselves just a tad too seriously. Whats this web site for again? A public forum for recognition of fine peoples (Magicians included) achievements or a rather pathetically insecure way of telling the world of what they do and dont personally prefer? Geesh, go tell mommy 8-) SHE probably cares. OH and by the way, if its all too complicated for you to learn about professional data base design and management, perhaps you better step aside and let the pros do it for you! OH and by the way by he way..where the hell did THIS excuse for a user interface come from? What:-O you dont know about that stuff. No go on...really? Geesh...Waiting feedback, if youve got it in you...From somewhere in the WORLD outside the latent north american republic!
    • It's neither, it's an encyclopedia. Do you think your personal attacks are anything new around here? -- Cyrius|✎ 9 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
    • I have to admit though, I love it when someone chucks a spaz. It lets me feel superior without having to do any work. IsThatAWandInYourPocket? 9 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)
    • Eh? Who said we were I.T. geeks? you don't really have to know computers to use Wikipedia... and if u dun like MediaWiki, go build something yourself and create your own Wiki =) that's wut the internet's for. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - public access magic show. Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 9 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I can imagine a public access program being notable but the article is just puffery and doesn't show that. Strong for making a mockery of the process. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
  • KEEPI saw their performance. The Magic Dudes are very personable and most entertaining. Some say 'Magic happens', well it does in the Magic Dudes very own act!! well done guys.
Just a note, I agree with the previous persons comment about the user interface. You people could get help with this. You should start with approriate exception handling and deliver useful error messages to the end users. Just a helpful tip, one should spot the difference between personal attacks and up to date comments from apparently qualified yet frustrated colleges, it all helps.Tomcat1 9 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
    • User's only edit.[11]
  • KEEP I think The Magic Dudes should stay here. They seem to be hard working entertainers. Everyone in acting knows how hard it can be to do tv slot after tv slot, all the preperation and its over in One hour.Dragon748 9 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
    • User's only edits.[12]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Not notable, vanity, sockpuppet invasion. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 18:40 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bye bye sockpuppets. --Madchester July 9, 2005 19:04 (UTC)
  • Keep The magic dudes my vote is to keep them i found them amusing and so did my three year old son.David copperfield they are not and if they were maybe they could make the turkeys that bag them out disappear.Community TV thats what C31 is sockpuppets are funny you see them at schools all around australia Maybe the critics should take a pill and give these dudes a go before canning them. You have to start somewhere and you are ahead of the turkeys that are still sitting on there computers thinking of the next thing to be negative about. Good luck dudes Terry & Maz
  • Modified article Still trying to take on board relevant comments and have modified artivle to take into account those comments that make sense.MagicFan 00:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the rewrite. I was never comfortable with "rumours" being mentioned. I am a fan of the Magic Dudes though and am glad that someone else felt it important enough to put them in. Thanks MagicFan. Michael Douglas 01:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What the hell is going on here? The people in question are obviously real. They have a regular act and have done a number of verifiable performances. I suggest the wannabe delete-ers get off their lazy a#%es and go do something themselves which is worthy of widespread puclic awareness! Then we shall see how you go with the editing page. Vote for inclusion and support this forum and your fellow achieveing brothers I say!!Corsair1 02:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC) User's first edit. [14].[reply]
    • Note that Wikipedia is not an advertisement agency. We are not here to spread public awareness about any issue but rather to be an encyclopedia, being a collection facts about things that have ALREADY been made famous. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, sockpuppet. Xoloz 06:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe Magic Dudes are real and of prominance in Australian and increasingly international live entertainment arenas. They belong within the pages of any prominent encycolpedia in todays times. They are a part of history and are synonimous with Magical cultural entertainment in our world today. (Vote by IP 61.68.249.82, users first and only edit)[15]
  • Delete. This is completely a vanity article. Access TV is itself a vanity medium. The DVD that these "magicians" appear on is self-produced--i.e., it is a vanity DVD. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. All over the world, there are hundreds of thousands of non-notable programs that have appeared on community access TV. Adding articles about them would quadruple the total number of current Wikipedia articles on all subjects. Fur Expert 18:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Magic dudes bring a little bit of laughter and joy to a world that is, at times, lacking in such things. Let the reference stay! Cahnnel 31 should be paying those 'dudes!' but, as they are not, remember that the magic dudes do their thing to bring a smile to people's faces and nothing more!(Ok, it brings a smile to their faces too!)...find another bandwagon to jump on and leave the magic dudes alone! Magic Dudes Groupie!
    • Unsigned comment by unregistered IP 202.6.138.34.[16] In case it wasn't clear, the votes of unregistered IPs and brand-new registered users are ignored. You're wasting your time. Postdlf 20:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually in Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion, it says "Anyone can contribute to the discussion and vote, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users". So they are not ignored. But it also says "If you are contributing your first article, or are a newly pseudonymous user, please state this clearly and up-front" which none of these users have done and that "Unsigned contributions may be discounted." which would discount this vote. FYI. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP:Lets keep the focus here on what its for. Keep The Magic Dudes. As you will see this is unsigned and a first vote. That seems to mean apparently as a member of the magic loving public I have to play this silly little game. It can obviously be determined that this is a first and unsigned vote. Hmm after reading the above, maybe I should make certain, since it seeme to be more inmportant than the VOTE which is what we are all supposed to be here for. Just in case its not clear, this is a first and unsigned vote this is a first and unsigned vote this is a first and unsigned vote this is a first and unsigned vote this is a first and unsigned vote this is a first and unsigned vote

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

    • Besides the fact that you discounted this vote itself, the focus of a VfD is NOT the vote itself but the discussion. And that didn't add much to the discussion except the possibility of another sock puppet IP. And note that we are not being inconsistent. I marked Fur Expert's edit as well so there is no "game" or anything. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete magicians who have not achieved any real notability apart from working with sockpuppets. Capitalistroadster 00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable magicians. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sasquatch, thank you for you feedback regarding "Anyone can contribute to the discussion and vote, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users". and advice that "If you are contributing your first article, or are a newly pseudonymous user, please state this clearly and up-front" which none of these users have done and that "Unsigned contributions may be discounted." I didn't know this (being new to Wikipedia) and I'm sure other people voting didn't either. Good to see some constructive comments for a change rather than the newby bashing that has gone on before. I must comment on Fur Experts comments. Access TV in North Amercia must be different to community TV in Australia. My understanding is that the shows are programmed by a programme director. You can't just "plug in" and transmit stuff. The fact that The Magic Dudes had a pilot on C31 before OTHER stations asked for the series seems to indicate to me that it is more complex than what you make out. Also, can you confirm your source that the DVD was self produced? Do you have a copy? There seems to be so much emphasis on the fact that these people made a START on C31. I don't see other people who STARTED on C31 being deleted. Furthermore, can someone please explain to me why THESE magicians are different to all the other magicians on Wikipedia? Is this a North American thing? If having their own TV series in multiple states of a country of 20 million isn't noteable, what is? Do they have to be North American? I have edited articles on other North American magicians before (both before and after registering) and none of these magicians has come up for deletion.MagicFan 02:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me show you something from this very article itself: "While the series continues to be shown on television, the Magic Dudes have not been seen performing together since producing their television series and DVD. It is hard to find out much more information on the Magic Dudes as they protect their actual identities closely. Their real names have never appeared on any advertising material for their shows or as credits on their TV series and at present their existing web site is under renovation after the announcement they are working on a stage show." To me, that sounds like this article is mostly used for promotion, which was why it was even put on here in the first place. I tried to look up information about these guys, I found nothing (see [18]). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, I have to take Zscout's side on this one. Even though they have been on TV, it just doesn't seem enough. For a couple of reasons a) Channel 31 is public access (even if threre is a program manager, it is signifangantly easier to get your own locally produced programs on air) b) they have done nothing else BEYOND just going on TV to indicate a level of notability and c) WP:V due to the lack of outside media coverage and public knowledge of the issue. This all seems to point that these guys do not deserve an article as of yet. I sincerely hope you guys luck in promoting yourselves and making a name for yourselves, but right now, you have to remember Wikipedia is not an advertising agency, its an encyclopedia, and The Magic Dudes just isn't encyclopedic yet. Sorry dudes. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Message for Sasquatch Sasquatch, not sure how to send you a message, but sure you'll be revisting this one again... you seem to understand the whole Wikipedia thing. I noticed that a VERY notable Canadian magician does not have an article in Wikipedia, but there is already an article on someone with the same name. How do you add an article on a different person with same name as someone who already has an article? Also, I getting really sick of the bullshit name slinging going on here (sockpuppetry, vanity, puffery etc etc). As you have actually made some constructive comments, as opposed to some other butt wipes who have posted here, could you make any suggestions as to what I need to do to improve this particular article for it to stay? I am a HUGE Magic Fan and I think any magician that has been on TV or is known more than regionally is worthy of an article (for example, lay people in Australia wouldn't have heard of Jay Sankey, but most magic fans I know know who he is... maybe he is more well known in Canada, but in the magic community, he is certainly WELL known and I notice the article on him has no such hassles as mine on the Magic Dudes). There are really notable magicians in Australia I would like to add, but I don't want to waste my team if I get abuse like I have on here.MagicFan 03:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling people "butt wipes" isn't constructive either. Accusations of sockpuppetry and vanity are meaningful in this forum. Grade-school insults are not. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • First, let me clarify sock puppet accusations, they arise from the INFLUX (you can go look at other VFDs and compare) of new user accounts suddenly being drawn to this page and voting keep. This tends to indicate EITHER a) someone is setting up multiple user accounts and voting repeatedly or b) that someone has told all their friends and family to come here and vote keep. Either way, a) means sockpuppet votes and shouldn't be counted and b) suggests that they have no notability outside people who know them personally. This would make those votes relatively meaningless compared to the others who have judged the article. Hope that makes sense? Anyways, I'll leave you a message on your talk page on how to create pages like that. And a vanity page just implies that The Magic Dudes was either written by the Magic Dudes themselves or someone really close to the Magic Dudes. Check out WP:BIO for more inforamation. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • For Zscout... I got most of my info from their website... I was able to find it at www.magicdudes.com. I had it saved in my favourites. It used to have more than one page, but looks like it is down for reno at this time as the links from the page have gone. Also in Google, I got four other sites referencing this site.MagicFan 03:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now it makes more sense. Since their official site is down, the Magic Dudes are trying to use Wikipedia for free promotion and webspace, neither of which are allowed. --Madchester 05:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
From the four references, if we are even talking about the same thing, could be mirrors of Wikipedia. Many have popped up, so looking for stuff is hard. Plus, most of the mentions the Magic Dudes have to here refer to this vote. Plus, since most of the stuff you mainly copied from is from their website, that is where the vantity/promotion aurguement kicks in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Zscout again... no, I didn't get those Wikipedia links you mentioned? Does Google give different things in different countries? The references I got were from other web sites to the Magic Dudes web site. I can almost see what you are saying re the vanity if I cut and pasted from the Dudes web site. Do you have an constructive suggestions as to what I could change in my article to remove that aspect? I only added them because I was online doing Google searches for them and came across Wikipedia links to magicians, but couldn't find them there. I've seen them on TV, so I thought they deserved an article. There are a few other Australian magicians I have noticed that are also not in Wikipedia, as well as some North American ones, all of whom have had TV series. I am quite happy to take constructive criticisms of my article, just getting a little tired of the allegations made against people who have actually heard of the Magic Dudes. I obviosuly think the article should stay, so I am happy to make changes that people suggest (already took out some rumours and also fixed the caps etc etc as mentioned by other people). You will also note I have asked Sasquatch for his input.MagicFan 03:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable magicians. For their first notable trick, perhaps the Dudes can make the sockpuppets disappear. carmeld1 06:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable magicians. JamesBurns 07:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • The issue at hand isn't the formatting/wording of the article, its the content and its notability. Until further notability is established, it honest doesn't matter if you rewrite it or not. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP: When my children and their grand children years from now want to see an encylcopedia which shows pieces of todays history in the making, all I can say is I hope they get to see The Magic Dudes. When I have a noteworthy addition to make regarding my own achievements, I will add them to Wikipedia! Thankyou.

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

  • KEEP Are you allowed to vote if you are new? I don't have many entries so far as this is my first day. If I am allowed to vote, I say keep. I have seen these guys on television and they are really funny and really good. They have a cool animation at the start of their shows which is so funny. Kids love it and just want it played over and over. I have all their DVDs. Do they not appear on TV overseas? I don't know if this is the forum, but I am trying to put an entry in Wikipedia on the Doug Anthony All Stars. Does anyone know where I can find more information on them? Thanks. Magic Dudes are excellent :-) P.S. I even have a picture of the Magic Dudes, but it is a photo with their web site address on it so I thought that it probably wasn't suitable for the encyclopedia based on what is written above. Ally G 10:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC) (Account creted today [User contributions|contributions] Skysmith 11:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC) They had actually mentioned that in their message.[reply]
  • Delete - fan sockpuppet/meatpuppet invasion, vanity, poster child for speedy deletion policy update. The more time this article stays up, the more mirrors will absorb it - Skysmith 11:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • QuestionTo those who have seen The Magic Dudes on other stations than 31 - which other stations and when?--Porturology 13:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC) Ten or GTV9????[reply]
  • To the person who rewrote the Magic Dudes article... Thanks. I guess I am starting to see what people were saying. The rewrite makes more sense. I guess that will teach me that you need to put more effort in than cutting and pasting from a web site. Do any of the fans have an email address that I could write to the Magic Dudes and get more info? MagicFan 13:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Upon inspection, the http://www.magicdudes.com (and old address [19]) website seems to be a potential magic supplies retail store, more than anything else. It's being listed as such on several magic store directories: [20],[21],[22], [23] So they're simply using Wikipedia for advertising. --Madchester 14:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Madchester, they were definitely on TV as I've seen their show too. I also did a Google search and I think the links you are talking about are old. There must have been a previous owner of the URL as the Magic Dudes aren't a shop, they are an act. If they were a shop, it would be a pretty crud shop as they don't sell anything. Michael Douglas 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting how a Google Search only reveals "The Magic Dudes" stores, but never a show of the same name. --Madchester 15:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Proof that the delete voters don't know their notable from not notable magicians. The same guys delted Richard Sanders from Wikipedia. Richard Sanders has had TV shows in North America, appears with Jay Sankey, delvelops magic with Jay Sankey and gives lectures on magic. The same people trying to delete the Magic Dudes say Jay Sankey is notable, but delete Richard Sanders. By the same token, they leave Magic Joe in Wikipedia. It is becoming very apparant that certain individuals here just go around deleting other peoples articles without doing any research into what is notable and what isn't. If you don't know anything about magicians, then why are you making decisions regarding which ones are notable? Previous unsigned comment by 203.54.40.161 (talk · contribs). --Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Where? I checked the delete log and the only sanders that was deleted was [[Category:Sanders]]. Plus, there is still a Richard Sanders page about a character actor. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • www.magicdudes.com doesn't look like a shop to me. It looks like a website under renovation.Previous unsigned comment by 203.54.40.161 (talk · contribs). --Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • They didn't look like a shop on TV or DVD either. First time I've seen a shop do magic :-) They look like two blokes to me. I put their photo up now. Hope that doesn't break any rules. People who have been on Wikipedia a long time seem to be rude to new people. Ally G 15:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it might be an image copright violation see WP:CP. Ask yourself this a) did they release it to the public? b) did you take and edit the picture yourself? or c) would it count as fair use. I don't see fair use applied here, so i suggest you find a corresponding tag. Please read more on Wikipedia policy before making contributions. It makes everybody's job a lot easier. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I reported the pic for a possible copyright violation earlier today. --Madchester 19:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I did a scan back through edits to the List of Magicians and Richard Sanders was deleted twice. Once by Postdlf and once by Android79, both of whom feature as negative voters on this page and both of whom obviously know nothing about the magic community.
  • Web hits for magic dudes
      • despite what Zscout370 says, the home page did come on top on all searches as listed below and it didn't mention a shop or anything for sale
    • number one in Google if you search for "magicdudes" rather than the+magic+dudes
    • number one entry on NineMSN if you just do a search for "magic dudes" which adds weight to the argument they are well known in Australia at least
    • number one entry on MSN using "magic dudes" (maybe Google isn't the be all and end all that I thought it was)
      • 70 hits, same as above. [27]. Just for fun, I did a Google search on myself: [28]. Look, my homepage comes up on top or my mention in Flags of the World website activities. However, do I have an article here: no, though I get more hits than all of those, combined. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC) lets all go and wave a flag for Zscout[reply]
    • You do realize the only reason they're listed is because they have the most relevance to the search query... doesn't establish notability at all... type in "joystiq" and it'll point you to joystiq.com first... Its the number of unique hits that establishes notability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. They're on the road, they were on TV, they're known enough to be so frequently voted on, meets my standards of notability. Almafeta 17:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Joe Crouser

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Thesis Statement

[edit]

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

  • Weak delete It could be cleaned up, but it is probably better off deleting this, as it seems more like a potential Wikitionary entry, if it isn't already. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 9 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)
  • Keep: Needs a great deal of expansion but has potential especially in the history of thesis work and some of the better known thesis's throughout academic times. Needs a stub, but Keep. -Husnock 9 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to thesis statement and tag for cleanup.Move to thesis as per below. Meelar (talk) July 9, 2005 07:37 (UTC)
  • Merge with thesis. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 08:20 (UTC)
  • Redirect to thesis. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. Merge/redirect doesn't work for me because a thesis statement (a sentence that summarizes a paragraph/short essay) really has nothing to do with a thesis (a very lengthy work of academic significance). Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:40 (UTC)
    • A "thesis statement" and academic theses have everything in the world to do with each other. The former represents the latter in miniature, and each may be defined as (roughly, for I am no lexicographer) "the position which is to be proven through analysis" usually thereafter following. Those of us who have had the experience of writing bad first thesis drafts have probably also shared the experience of having a thesis advisor drive this point home repeatedly. Xoloz 06:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with thesis. And don't sign your articles! --Idont Havaname 20:17, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, agreed with Havaname and Natalinasmpf -mysekurity 22:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. Xoloz 06:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Thesis. JamesBurns 07:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

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

InuYasha Galaxy

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Cardavenue

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Alan Eakian (character)

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Because

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Lejban

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Aboratory (band)

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Beast-man

[edit]

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

  • Keep Try taking mentality out of quotations in the search. It can be used in other contexts. Over 30,000 hits for "beast man" on Google [29] and over 30,000 hits for "beastman." [30] Cognition 9 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wasn't Beast-man one of He-Man's pals? Guess not. Lots of Google results...but they're almost all talking about a comic book character or are otherwise not relevant to this definition. Lyndon LaRouchecruft. — Gwalla | Talk 9 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)
    • Beast-man was one of Skeletor's pals, and so He-Man's enemy. Xoloz 9 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
    • Try searching "beast man" + LaRouche to narrow it down, in order to see the notably of this term in the movement. Cognition 9 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most favorable reading of the article text is that this is an intentionally offensive term used by an obscure political group to refer to people who disagree with them. In other words, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. --FOo 9 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)
  • Redirect to He-Man, or other comic stories in which this character might exist. Xoloz 9 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
    • From He-Man (Section -- Evil Warriors): "Beast-Man, Skeletor's Savage Henchman who can control wild animals" Xoloz 9 July 2005 07:21 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to He-Man. Postdlf 9 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
  • Comment. [beast-man larouche] brings up 742 hits, indicating that only about one in fifty mentions of the term are LaRouche-related. On the other hand, [beast-man he-man] gets over 15,000 hits, meaning that nearly one in two mentions refer to the superhero. -Willmcw July 9, 2005 07:36 (UTC)
    • Google hits are not an exact indicator of notability. For example, I bet, for example, Paris Hilton gets more Google hits than someone like John Quincy Adams or just about any other American president, even though Ms. Hilton was not the one to make the significant impact on history. A central theme of the LaRouche movement is in the same sense more notable than some comic book character. Cognition 9 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
      • Actually, no. -Willmcw July 9, 2005 07:51 (UTC)
        • Care to elaborate with anything beyond a snide edit summary? Cognition 9 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)
          • The more apt comparison is that [Paris Hilton] gets over nine million hits, while [Paris Hilton Suffren] gets only 28k. Therefore our article on Paris Hilton is not about the hotel on avenue de Suffren in Paris. -Willmcw July 9, 2005 08:53 (UTC)
            • Okay. So are you saying that we disregard holistic, qualitative assessments of notability and just use number of Google hits as an ironclad rule? Cognition 9 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
            • To further the point, Pres. Washington is about 2.5 times more popular on the web than Ms. Hilton (thank whatever higher power!) Also, Mr. LaRouche, despite many attempts, has never been elected to high office, so comparing his movement to any American President (even the current very foolish one) probably appears unreasonable to most people who are not a part of the LaRouche movement. Xoloz 9 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)
              • Very foolish indeed... I respect your opinion on the VfD here, but his presidential bids are hardly the only facet of his movement. Cognition 9 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
                • I agree. Political success, however, is the only achievement which might put Mr. LaRouche on par with J. Q. Adams, et. al. As a philosopher, his following is devoted and notable, but not so extensive that every "term of art" he employs deserves notice, to the exclusion of other uses. Xoloz 9 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

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

  • Delete possibly a dicdef, certainly non-notable. Why are there so many dicdefs today? -Splash 9 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Boxfive

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Enyimba

[edit]

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

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

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

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

MySAP All-in-One

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Mann (word)

[edit]

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

  • Delete, since there's already a definition (I think) at wiktionary. Unless someone of course can explains something like the cultural significance/impact on society and whatnot of the term. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign dicdef - although, hey, it's actually native to me ;) --Moritz 9 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)
  • Delete YAdicdef. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:10 (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 delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zetacreations

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Hasty pudding

[edit]

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

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

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

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

David Irving - Unbiased Biography

[edit]

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

  • Delete POV fork. Can this be speedied? Dunc|☺ 9 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Xoloz 9 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Ironically not unbiased. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)
  • Delete, while I agree that the original article is tendentious, this isn't the appropriate solution. jamesgibbon 9 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Unsurprisingly, not unbiased. --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
  • Delete - just to reiterate the point. -- Cyrius|✎ 9 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Electric Universe model

[edit]

New rationale

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Old rationale

[edit]

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

  • Keep I am the author of this article. I have added the Controversial boilerplate to the Discussion page. I would suggest that although the article may be considered controversial, and you may not agree with its position, this does not necessarily make it pseudoscience. Please check the article for its interest, and whether it is well constructed, and presents a good case. Arguably, all new ideas can be considered pseudoscience until they are more fully evaluated and peer reviewed. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath-water, as we say in the UK. Ian Tresman 9 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an explicit policy against original research and this article qualifies as that. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes of course this is going to be a controversial topic. Let it be marked as "disputed" if necessary. I see great value to readers in the article: the recent Deep Impact mission to Tempel 1, which received over 1 billion hits on the NASA web site, proved the interest of people in science at the "edge" of discoveries. I think Wikipedia is doing a great job to provide people with both "established" knowledge and "emerging" knowledge. I have often learn't more about a topic by reading the lively discussion page than by reading the article itself, so even if the "debate" is moved to the discussion page, the readers can still benefit -- --Bongani 9 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)
It is misleading to say that this article represents "emerging" knowledge. It is mostly hodgepodge of facts, ideas, and internet websites. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua it is only 12 days old! As for "facts, ideas and internet web sites" - well pretty much every Wikipedia article has those, and they aren't illegal. I do agree though with the gist of your comment that the article has a long way to go before it could be called "comprehensive" or "high quality", but if it gets deleted, it will never be given that chance. Your comment is fine as a criticism, but not as a reason for deletion.--Bongani 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This users 4th edit-Splash 9 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
  • Comment. The relevance is that registering usernames for the purpose of voting on VFD — or making it seem like you're doing so — is frowned upon. We've had to deal with too many sock puppets doing the exact same thing. This, of course, does not change the significance of your argument, but please keep this in mind when voting on VFD.
    And yes, if Stephen Hawking had voted after making only 4 edits, we'd be saying the same thing. --Ardonik.talk()* 08:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK - I understand the reasoning. My first edit was October 2004, my name is Mike Stuart ("Bongani"), my contact number is +27 11 485 2036, my email is mike@rainbowsa.co.za. And I am not a sock puppet. (I have not edited much yet on Wikipedia, but am a frequent browser of both article and talk pages; I also run my own Wiki on skills development] in South Africa, and am the editor of the Skills Development Guide and National Training Directory publications). --Bongani 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ardonik said it exactly. I did notice that your edits were spread out, but just occasionally an account is compromised (or a user goes off the rails). Seeing as your vote is evidently in good-faith and the rest of the VfD does not seem to be overflowing with sock/meat puppets, I imagine (but don't promise — that's for the closing admin and there is some funny stuff going on at the bottom of the page) that your vote will be counted along with the rest. -Splash 18:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This theory is obviously pseudoscience, although I suppose it could be kept as long as it is made clear that this is simply not accepted by mainstream science at all. 64.223.120.40 9 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep'. I can see this being expanded further though the creator needs to go through and summarize some of the points from the links. WP is not a link repository. It would be much more helpful if there was more information regarding the theories/ideas. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 10:41 (UTC)
But it is a misrepresented article. There is no such thing as an "Electric Universe model". There is only a bunch of websites and a book with the title "The Electric Universe". Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. So far I haven't seen a single argument why this article should be deleted?! There is no Wikipedia policy to limit articles to (mainstream) science. This appears to be a sufficiently notable topic to be in the encyclopedia. VfD is not the forum to discuss NPOV disputes. --Moritz 9 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Useless psuedoscience: the Sun and stars are powered by an external electric current... is nonsense. Also non-notable (try google): this is essentially someones pet theory they are pushing. William M. Connolley 2005-07-09 11:36:53 (UTC).
    • I did try google, and I'm getting >50k results for "electric universe". The question remains how many of those are related, "electric universe model" only gives 500 results, furthermore Google results aren't perfect for determining notability. (If someone has further insights regarding notability, I'd be very interested in them?if the guy turns out to be the only one interested in this I will change my vote.) Useless pseudoscience (not that I necessarily disagree!) is not a reason for VfD, unless the article is total nonsense/gibberish which it is not. It is someone pushing his pet theory, but that, too, isn't a reason for deletion as far as I am aware.--Moritz 9 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
      • Hi Moritz - if you do a search for "'electric universe' + plasma" you get 6,240 results (not sure how to find out how many of those are unique - anyone?) What this means to me is not that the model is gospel truth, but just that it is relevant to be offering it as an article on Wikipedia from the perspective of reader interest. --Bongani 19:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are parts of this article that can be saved, but the article itself is about a nonsubject Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fast growing non-subject': Moritz's Google search mentioned just above which yielded 500+ results for "electric universe model" 10 days ago, now yields 973 results, an increase of 194%. Will we decide to delete a topic on Wikipedia that represents a fast growing field of interest just because it offends mainstream science? I personally would not have a problem with it appearing under the heading of "pseudoscience", if that makes the mainstream science people feel more safe, but lets not censor the information from being available to the public. --Bongani 18:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I tend to agree with William M. Connolley jamesgibbon 9 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
  • sigh Okay, look. True, it's not gibberish, not per se. But it's damn close to original research, and... to quote Wolfgang Pauli, "this isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

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

  • Delete. Of those 500 Google hits correctly reported by -Moritz, only 71 are unique. Thus non-notable and, as other voters have said, this article doesn't offer anything encyclopedic. Also, it is extremely close to original research. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
  • Merge with plasma cosmology. --Christopher Thomas 9 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A few centuries ago, most of the statements of today's science, as well as their authors' heads, would have been granted a Strong Delete, for the simple reason that they attempted to understand questions unanswered by the paradigm of those times. There are questions - many questions - which today's science cannot answer, and it is reasonable to assume that some of the reasons lie in the paradigms which underlie it. The concept of an electric universe, which I have looked into for quite a while, is a truly scientific theory in that it asks the kind of questions that other scientific views (those views which happen to dominate the trends of our century) are paradigmatically blind to. I see Wikipedia as the true Encyclopedia (Diderot's, that is) of our time; "mutatis mutandis", I do not think that it is Wikipedia's role in history to inflict on Ian Tresman what was inflicted on Galileo -- 83.94.159.146 9 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)
    • You don't know much about what happened to Galileo, do you. It's not that he said "the Earth goes around the Sun", it's that he said "the Earth goes around the Sun, and the Pope (who is paying for all this) is an idiot". Galileo's problem wasn't that he was right, it was that he was an asshole. Even more important, though, he was right. Modern science is always willing to accept a new idea if there's a compelling reason to do so. DS 9 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
      • I take exception to that characterization. Some would say that Urban VIII was horribly thin-skinned to have taken Galileo's writings so personally, and that, in any case, subjecting a once-close friend to the Inquisition is inexcusable. And Galileo was correct in asserting that he was entitled, by prior decree, to teach whatever hypotheticals he wished. The 1994 apology from John Paul II was not merely an admission of the scientific truth of Galileo's work, but also a recognition that his prosecution was unjust under canon law of the time. Xoloz 06:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thin-skinned? He called the guy arguing the church side Simplicio! This is after the pope granted him permission to write the dialog only if he argued both sides. The only way to insult the pope more would be too literally pee on him. gkhan 12:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - moderately notable nutcase physics. Article needs to say that it's full of shit though. -- Cyrius|✎ 9 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:49 (UTC)
  • Keep This model explains much that has been discovered recently in astrophysics and cosmology. It deserves to be available for review, appraisal and honest discussion, not swept under the rug. Ken Moss 9 July 2005 11:40(UTC) (Comment by 24.69.255.205.)
    • In order: No it doesn't, no it doesn't (unless you can prove it?), and no it doesn't - it deserves to be carefully excised and disposed of. 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--We have an article on creationism on this site which is obviously a load of BS so why not about an actual scientific theory?--Boyinabox 9 July 2005
  • Keep It's a load of BS, but it doesn't qualify as original research since it was a theory apparently proposed by Velikovsky, who is well known. It should be separate from Plasma cosmology which is theory actually proposed by a notable physicist. –Joke137 20:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about this? The V page sez Of all the strands of his work, Velikovsky published least on his ideas regarding the role of electromagnetism in astronomy and then goes on to say he abandoned but disciples took it up. Is a minor discarded V theory really worth including? William M. Connolley 21:29:27, 2005-07-09 (UTC).
  • Delete (see Talk:Electric Universe model) If this is not a page about the theory due to Velikovsky, then I say axe it, unless a clear distinction can be made between it and the Plasma cosmology theory. –Joke137 23:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pseudoscientific babble, by the looks of it. Unless of course we can get some references to peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals? --StoatBringer 00:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor pseudoscientific theory. No peer-review papers in reputable journals, and few google hits either. Salsb 02:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real theory. An idea worthy of mention. maclean25 08:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Splash. Additionally, the article doesn't really explain the theory, so much as reference outside sources for it. Xoloz 08:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The box at the top of the article that says "this article is controversial, ..., not excepted by mainstream science, ..." is a good start, but it needs "this theory is complete crap". Non-notable crackpottery. Quale 08:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep [Double vote by anon] The history of science is littered with stories of broken careers (and worse) of scientists or talented autodidacts who propose new explanations for phenomena where a well-developed paradigm is in operation. Unfortunately, in scientific research, just as in any other sphere of life, personal egos, power and prejudice play an important role in sustaining a current theory and defending it from question and attack, ironically often through the very “ peer review” procedures that are meant to control the quality and “originality” of technical articles.
    • If the history of science is littered with stories of broken careers and worse, then surely you can supply them. I'll admit that scientists are humans, and that egos and politics can influence the outcome of science. Case in point, Deutsche Physik - which was the result of the government interfering in science, not in scientists deciding independently to exclude huge amounts of new discoveries on ideological grounds. Science goes with what works. Since this doesn't work - and it doesn't- it gets rejected. DS 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, one can find more articles relating to Electric Universe topics in the journals of plasma physics, than in the journals of cosmoslogy or astrophysics, where one would assume they would be extremely relevant. I believe this is due to the fact that there are some very powerful scientists with a vested interest in protecting the theories which they themselves have contributed to building up. And these people are exactly those who typically form a peer review board. People like Kristian Birkeland and Halton Arp are often viewed as heretics by cosmologists that perhaps find electrical forces an unwelcome element in their elegant equations.
Scientists will, and do, admit that their entire theoretical framework has been based on a flawed premise if you show them a good reason. There's a story about an old scientist attending a conference, listening to a speaker, and then approaching the man afterwards and saying "Thank you! I have been wrong these past twenty years!" To quote Carl Sagan, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." Give us a good reason to accept the Electric Universe model, and then we'll see. Also, "very powerful scientists"? What planet are you living on? And "heretics"? Do you think people are going to get burned at the stake for this? Excommunicated from the laboratories?DS 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh.
I think I will skip the historical examples. Although at the moment we don't seem to be burning our heretics, we certainly do a good job at exiling them. And I don't define power only at the scale of certain world powers. Science certainly has its hierarchies and its own internal power structure.
Among our contemporaries, we could start with Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons - one of the examples that actually made it into the world's media mill.
(you mean the frauds?)
Or Halton Arp, mentioned in my original posting; ask him why his office is at the Max-Planck Institute in Germany...
The world of medical research is a rich area to look at when looking for exiled scientists, below just a couple of the better known:
[Jacques Benveniste], [Peter Duesberg]
Jacques Benveniste's work could not be replicated, even by his own coworkers - and that's just the more straightforward ultra-dilution work, and not his "digitized antigen" idiocy. You're citing an experiment which was at best tangentially related. And the Duesberg hypothesis is bullshit. It'd be great if it wasn't, but it is. Not the best comparisons for a proponent to make.


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

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

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

  • Keep. If we deleted articles on the basis of their subject's being bullshit, we wouldn't have much about religion. Seriously though, we should not limit speculation on the world to science in a work that encompasses all human knowledge. Grace Note 01:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This, on the other hand, is a not-unreasonable argument.
  • I am the author of this article, and would like to address some of the points made so far. Most votes to remove it are based on the article being pseudoscience or worse. I would like to respond that (a) I don't think that pseudoscience is a reason for deletion, otherwise articles on astrology, crop circles, UFOs, and dozens of other subjects, must also be contenders for deletion. (b) Wikipedia Articles are not peer reviewed submissions, they do not even present a case. They are merely an overview of the subject, including how viewpoints may have rightly or wrongly come about. (c) That people have considered an Electric Universe (in various forms) is clear from the historic references provided, from Birkeland onwards. Again it does not matter whether any of these people were right or wrong. What is important, is to provide an accurate record of the whos and whys. (d) The Electric Universe is distinct from Plasma Cosmology in that it (i) pre-dates it (ii) suggests more radical proposals, eg. electric stars, (iii) Has interdisciplinary connections with ancient history and other sciences. (e) I have yet to add any material explaining the more radical aspects of the Electric Universe; everything else is standard astrophysics. To summarise: you don't have to like the article, but surely that is not reason to suppress it.Ian Tresman 11 July 2005 11:33 (GMT)
    • That said, however, it pretty much seems to be original research based on misinterpretations of Birkeland.
The above comment says it all for the rationale as to why this article should be deleted. "That people have considered the Electric Universe" doesn't make sense as an argument. People "consider" a lot of things. and it isn't suprising that they consider electricity and the universe together. That does not mean that there is such a thing as the "Electric Universe model". See, for example, the VfD on creation anthropology. This article was deleted because the author developed it as an amalgamation project from a number of different people who "considered" creationism and anthropology. The same standard should be applied here. This is an article that was developed as a clearinghouse of a whole slew of ideas that relate "electricity" and the universe. Many are unrelated to each other. Joshuaschroeder 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Judging from comments here I should probably begin by saying I am a "total newcomer" - I'm also an undergraduate physics student, so my grasp of these fields is not large. However, I think that this artice should stay on Wikipedia for a number of reasons.
    • Firstly, even though this stuff does not have the necessary recognition to avoid the "original research" flag, I feel that both the age of the theory, and the considerable body of seemingly scientific research that relates to it, should preclude it from this rule. The "Electric Universe" model represents a collection of ideas being developed by a number of people from different backgrounds over many years. I feel that the spread of the work saves it from being original research in the sense that is intended by Wikipedia's reviewing policies.
    • Secondly, although the "model" may be pseudo-scientific in it's overall structure it seems to contain in it much that is scientific, and I would tend to agree that its "pseudo-" stems from its "proto-".
    • As to positive reasons to keep it:
      • The electric universe ideas represent a compelling counter voice in an area of science where the accepted theory stands largely alone. To add to this, the area of science is one which is significantly unfalsifiable. This combination is a very unhealthy position for a science to be in, and we should welcome opposing ideas simply for the sake of scientific integrity. In this vein, electric universe is a good candidate simply because it is so different from the accepted model - even if it turns out to be complete nonsense, it's nonsensical richness may inspire newer better theories. Someone should remember dissident voices such as these, and I think Wikipedia should be that someone.
      • The model is also compelling because it does exhibit worthwhile traits: it focuses on the problems of the accepted theories, and also seeks balance and revision - the Newtonian hegemony in cosmology should make us uncomfortable. A cosmos governed by mechanics alone does seem primitive; simplity is not always a good thing but may indicate that we have ignored to much detail.
      • Finally, there is a quiet revolution going on in physics which I feel may disturb the very foundations of many theories. As we come to understand non-equilibrium dynamics more and more, and we begin to acept that large effects can have small causes I think we may find that we have been looking at many problems in entirely the wrong way. Our current ideas have as their ancestors two body problems, analytical systems. But the universe is vast and contains innumerable components, to look only on the small scale and fail to appreciate the entirety of the system could be disastrous - what I like most about the electric model is it tries to engage the universe wholistically, rather than by reductionism, and is itself based in a non-equilibrium science (electric plasmas).
    • I'm not saying keep it because I like it. I'm saying keep it because it represents worthwhile counter-voice to an entrenched and often conservative orthodoxy.-Hayimd 18:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC) <-- user's first edit is this VfD.[reply]
  • From the above:
Firstly, even though this stuff does not have the necessary recognition to avoid the "original research" flag, I feel that both the age of the theory, and the considerable body of seemingly scientific research that relates to it, should preclude it from this rule.
The article makes it seem as though the theory is old simply because it refers to well-respected scientists who happened to do research in plasma physics. Birkeland, Spitzer and Langmuir did not advocate for an "electric universe" in the sense implied in the article, notwithstanding a quote where Birkeland muses about the possibility of electrical stars. The current theory of stellar fusion is more a part of their legacy.
I would vote to keep the article if it were to be an article about a historically interesting, discredited and disowned theory of Velikovsky. As it is, it is more of a catalog of electromagnetic phenomena in the universe, many of which are widely agreed on by mainstream physicists, and no description, except in the introduction, of how the electric universe "theory" differs from mainstream physics. I think that is because there is no theory, other than the primitive one advocated by Velikovsky and his acolytes. The rest is mainstream physics or plasma cosmology is at least a genuine alternative cosmology, albeit one that is not generally seen as coherent or well-supported. –Joke137 19:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- we should keep the parts of the article that are relevent to Velikovsky with the Velikovsky nonsense but "Electric Universe model" is an inappropriate title for a hodgepodge internet collection of a wide range of disparate ideas that represent, for the most part, original research. The "Electric Universe" is advocated by a large number of nonscientists and there are a number of scientists listed in the article itself which do not actually believe that Velikovsky is worth anything (see plasma cosmology for example). Where there is new information, it can be included in other articles. If I recall correctly there was a book entitled "The Electric Universe". We should make a page about that book but this page that is trying to be a clearinghouse needs to be deleted because, frankly, there is no such thing as an "electric universe model". It's a neologism invented by some very wacko and very fringe antiscientists. Joshuaschroeder 22:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Vsmith 03:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As space probes give us more and more information, we are learning that the gravity only model can't explain all that we are seeing,and that electricity, magnetism and plasma play more of a role in space than we previously thought. I would not throw out an article that will help us learn and explain the new discoveries as they occur. Tom Thomsen <-- anon user 67.4.185.181; first edit
The above comment does not come even close to a justification for keeping the article. The Pioneer anomaly is not a free license to make sloppy articles about made-up subjects.
  • Weak Delete: Assuming there is at least some scientific foundation, an article on a new theoretical model would be great. But I can't find anything original except a qualitative suggestion that the role of electro-magnetism has been underestimated (it certainly has not been ignored). There isn't even really an adequate definition or any indication what mainstream model is being challenged. Peter Grey 15:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This seems to be a bunch of disorganized rambling about a fairly well researched field of study. Perhaps it can be cleaned up and turned into an article about the pseudoscience, but as it stands I tend to agree with the assertion that it's a "neologism invented by some very wacko and very fringe antiscientists". No doubt plasma needs to be better understood, but I don't see any evidence that this is what's going on here. Space lightning scaring cavemen? C'mon! Gabe 19:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the article is about. The article is a hodge-podge POV-fork meant to distract from physical cosmology. Perhaps you could elaborate on your rationale? Joshuaschroeder 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua - I am curious how you know that the intention of the article is "to distract from physical cosmology"? Or is this an assumption? --Bongani 18:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt quite a bit with people who advocate various ends of plasma cosmology in my work with cosmology. There are a few in the fringes of this group who are so far out there that anything that sounds like plasma cosmology gets included in the Electric Universe including legitimate research and fanciful meanderings of Velikovsky. As I have said, the Electric Universe itself is a book and one that basically follows the same line as this page (that is to attack mainstream cosmology), but this is not an "Electric Universe model" by any strech of the imagination -- it's only a book. Nevertheless, there are those people who follow this line of pseudoscience rather closely and do have the deliberate intention of attacking physical cosmology for whatever reason (mostly because they hate the Big Bang model). The content of the article speaks to this motivation as it states very radical conclusions from some very mundane observations and some very strung-out descriptors of Velikovsky, etc. to tie the whole thing together. The article is written from the perspective of a person from this internet community of "Big Bang skeptics" who likes to think that if they can attack from as many "points of view" as possible, it will lend credence to their ideas. Joshuaschroeder 21:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the new rationale. If no consensus on delete, perhaps evolve the page to describe the Velikovsky stuff. In its current form the article is a blatant violation of WP:NOR, and bad research by the way: The Electric Sun model also bares some resemblance to the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor, an Inertial-Electrostatic-Confinement (IEC) Fusion device which accelerates postive ions towards a central anode. Cough! --Pjacobi 19:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect

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

The Mushroom Kingdom

[edit]

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

  • I was just going to put it up for speedy delete. Having recieved a threatening comment on my talk page as a result of this, I strongly reiterate that this article should be deleted. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Sandy M 9 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)
  • Keep. It may not be all too well-written and way too short, but it is a popular, well-known site that can provide information for the page easily. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 09:10 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are you people are morons? I just read about this in our chatroom. We are the coolest and bestest Mario website on the net. Only idiots and morons would say to "speedy delete" our site. If voting is how we get to keep this article, then I'll definitely be asking all our chat regulars to vote keep on this. I hope I never have to come to this horrid place again. I find it highly insulting that you people have the audacity to judge our site. Tooraj 9 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)
  • This user's only edit.-Splash 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
Yes, but if we kept on that criteria or the vote was modified that way, then it would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and sockpuppeteering guidelines. Insulting? I SPIT on your website. Delete. -- Natalinasmpf 07:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have 4733 edits. [31] -- Natalinasmpf 07:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hi, our chatroom was discussing this. I was told to vote keep on this and I get entered in a lottery to win possible mod status on the channel. Well, wish me luck on winning. Hey, Tooraj when will the drawing end? Ramin X 9 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
  • This user's first edit. -Splash 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
  • That is nice, but you should add something meaningful to the discussion particularly as it relates to how encyclopedic the article is as this is potentially weighed most heavily around here in determining the outcome rather than just the raw count of Keep or Delete, as votes are not necessarily treated as numerical. Please explain why you believe the article should be kept other than that you are a member of a community or chatroom specific to the site featured. --Mysidia 9 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
  • Your forum misunderstands the procedures of Wikipedia. This page makes clear that admins can and will discount votes of brand new users . This is uniformly done in such clear cases of new users coming along specifically to support/oppose a particular page. Even if your keep votes overwhelm the delete votes, it will still go if you are all brand new, or fairly new users (or anon IP addresses) with such a clear agenda. You would do better to spend your time establishing the notability of your forum in the article in legitimate ways. -Splash 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Mushroom Kingdom - This looks like vanity/self-promotion/spam. 11,100,000 internet references to IMDB, V.S. 5,750 to this site in google. It does not appear that, and I do not believe that the Mushroom Kingdom is anywhere near the level of notability or utility of IMDB, which is a large project of broad scope and broad recognition, and I believe that the article overstates the importance of the site: even if it were true in a limited scope, the comparison hurts the article, because the web site. Mario is notable and encyclopedic, but in general, there may be many fansites, but they are not notable, and I have visited many Mario-related websites and sites which document or list Mario games in the past, but never this one. The Mario equivalent to IMDB is just IGN, Gamespot, et al, note that those are considered notable enough sites and do have articles. --Mysidia 9 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
    • The article makes this specific claim "Recently, it was the crown feature among the multitudes of booths in E3 and G4." It seems doubtful, I have checked E3's list of exhibitioners and been unable to find any listing for TMK, is there somewhere else that should be checked before concluding that this claim is probably not so? --Mysidia 9 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fansites have a very high bar to clear to be encyclopedic. Give them an external link on the Mario Brothers page, but no article. And this "lottery" of newbies voting won't help either. Your votes won't be counted so don't bother; you'll just piss us off and garner more dlete votes. -R. fiend 9 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
    • By the way, The Mushroom Kingdom already has external links from several of the Mario-related articles on Wikipedia, and I agree, that is fine, TMK has content that merits linking from those articles, even if the site is not noted widely enough to merit a separate article on it. --Mysidia 03:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for that endorsement. To all TMK members: You heard that ringing endorsement, so it's a giant free for all. If it's Mario related, add our site to it. Remember, try to get every article that is remotely related Mario linking to our site. We want all this site's Mario-related articles linking to our site. The deadline for the second lottery will even be extended for two months to make sure we get every Mario related article linked to our site. Tigerz 04:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forum, being supported by sock/meat puppets. -Splash 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic.
(this was added by Blu Aardvark; forgot to sign diff)
  • Delete per R. fiend -Harmil 9 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mushroom Kingdom. And this should be counted as a delete if it comes down to arguing about counting. I want it gone, I just think the redirect would be minorly helpful. -- Cyrius|✎ 9 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, non-notable website plus outrageous abuse. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:50 (UTC)
    • It's NOT vanity. Can you come up with a better Mario site? -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 18:41 (UTC)
    • Forgot to mention that when I searched for "Mushroom Kingdom", the site was the most frequently visited. It is definitely both notable and not vanity. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 18:41 (UTC)
Can you come up with a worse logical fallacy? You're making a circular argument. You fail. -- Natalinasmpf 07:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've heard of this site, I go there occasionally, I've posted on the forums, in the mailbag, and in the chatroom. However, it's merely an ephemeral fansite that's neither encyclopedic nor notable. Redirect to Mushroom Kingdom. Andre (talk) July 9, 2005 18:52 (UTC)
  • Keep. Our site was the "crown jewel". I doubt anyone would want to remove the "crown jewel" of anything. T Omidi 22:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please post my vote for me. I don't want to waste time on that wiki-whatever The Real Phunk
  • Keep. A very in-depth source of arcane Mario information. Our episode guides rivals and is even better than TVTome. Abn12
  • Keep. It's the very BEST Mario site in the world. Heche3
  • Keep. From what I've heard, this topic definitely belongs on Wikipedia.Arthur78
  • Keep. Servbot20
  • Keep. We rule. Twin Queen
  • Keep. I've posted some of the above votes from people in our chatroom since they wanted to enter the lottery, but not waste time coming here making an account and posting. Also, I'm voting keep too. I might as well enter too. Boco III 22:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case "Boco" didn't make it clear, he indeed posted seven keep votes. They still count as zero though. -R. fiend 23:06, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You guys know that the lottery prize will only be awarded if the article survives, right? I don't think this "discounting" stuff is just a scare tactic, what if they actually discount votes? Well, at least I'll try to make an effort to save this article. To reiterate some of the arguments in keeping our article - we are notable and not "vanity". Our website is the first site to be listed on Google when you search for "Mushroom Kingdom". That should be good enough because security is important to Google, not even the atom bomb can skew its results. Any site that shows up as the first listing on Google deserves an article on your Wikipedia. Also, we have very unique content that other sites don't have. For example, compare our cartoon episode guide with the one found on TVTome. When you compare the two, you will definitely see that we are the superior guide. I bet my total manhood that nobody that can counter these points. There, that should get me at least ten extra entries into the lottery, pretty please. Tigerz 23:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Equivalent to IMDB. 'nuff said. Youngblood 23:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is pretty clearly a vanity page --InformationalAnarchist 23:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a redirect to Mushroom Kingdom. As this is a subdomain, it has no clear Alexa data; the entire parent site, of which this is a very small part, is ranked at 17,254. 262 displayed google hits for the address and 119 incoming links don't argue for notability. —Cryptic (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not merely is there an attack of sockpuppets, but lazy sockpuppets. And it IS vanity: group vanity as opposed to individual vanity, but vanity nonetheless. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why are the people here so dense that they don't understand our site's impact on the Mario universe. When people think of movies, they instantly think of IMDB. When people think of Mario, they instantly think of our wonderful website. You people just probably need to be laid or something... Vadir 01:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You run a fansite devoted to a Nintendo game, and we're the ones who need to get laid? Wow. -R. fiend 01:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh, whatever, I don't care. If this gets deleted, then I'll just try my chances with the second lottery. At least with the second lottery, I don't have to deal with your crap anymore. Vadir 02:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: R. fiend's above retort deserves some kind of a prize - at the very least, it shall be immortalized in BJAODN. -- BD2412 talk 04:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • To other editors:Please don't use the vanity refrain, it's inaccurate and a nuisance accusation.

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

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

Well, I find it ridiculous people are challenging very basic information. What dummy would challenge that a chicken's egg yolk is yellow, or that 1 + 1 = 2, or that humans breathe oxygen. Challenging that The Mushroom Kingdom's status equivalence to IMDB is the epitome of idiocy. We are the first site listed in Google for "Mushroom Kingdom", this empirically proves the equivalence 100% Vadir 01:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the entry asserts only basic claims, and the Google evidence convincingly verifies the site's coverage as comprehensive, however, there is no mechanism by which Wikipedia can approve of only limited development of an entry. If editors agree to keep this entry, then like all other entries, there is the expectation it should eventually be expanded out of stub status, which will undoubtedly spill insider knowledge into the article. Against the Wikipedia inclusion standard this is a largely unverifiable subject matter.
And - This is just an online encyclopedia - there's no great value in being an article and there's no need to equate removal as an insult to your site's pride.
Regards, lots of issues | leave me a message 02:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruftcruft. -guety is talking english bad 01:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What can I say that hasn't already been said with more eloquence? Well, let's try this...: You're #1 on Google? OK then, let's do a test. Mushroom Kingdom : 670,000 Googles. Golden Axe : 751,000 Googles. Now according to those stats alone (alone, mind), that would make "Death Adder's Castle" the "more popular" site than yours because it beats back a greater number of other hits to become the #1. But does that mean it's deserving of an article here? Of course not! And another test, let's try Mario. Are you on the first search page? Nope! Try Zelda. Is there a fansite on the first page? Yep, Zelda Universe. Does that mean they deserve an article here? NO! Now look, I'm sure your fansite is awesome, and complete, and detailed, and the bees-knees of Mario... but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge, not a directory of cool. And as for this tactic of offering adminship to encourage flood voting, I am shocked. You are completely perverting the purpose of our Vfd system, that is that unbiased people vote based on their will to make Wikipedia a better place and uphold our high standards, not provide votes that basically boil down to "OMG dey gonna delet my favrite site ONO!!!11!! Keep keep keep it u bastids!!1!" GarrettTalk 02:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter if you removed it or not (referring to the previous edit). It's already been spread through our chat room, also if this loses the winner of the new lottery can choose channel mod instead of forum mod if they want. Tigerz 02:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we get any "increased chance" of winning the second lottery for past actions? My friend User:Eclipsed Moon added some already and are still present in some of the articles. Or does each link need to be a different account? I do see why it needs to be a different account, but can she get some "bonus" in the lottery because some of the links are still there. Or does she need to start over? Anyways, if not, at least this second lottery is much better than the first one. Whoever came up with the first lottery needs to be silenced for a week. :P Sandy M 03:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, please find something else to do. Because of the nature of your planned linking (retaliatory action against Wikipedia) we will be reverting links. Consider how minor this squabble is - it's just an online encyclopedia.
To other editors:The outcome of this vote is clear, please don't escalate with any new barbs.

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

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

  • Delete: Fancruft and vanity. Is non-notable. And frankly, as a sidenote, I think that their idea of lotteries to get non-Wikipedia members to vote for keeping this article is ridiculous, and should immediately cause the article's deletion. That said, I have thought of Mario games many times, and I have never associated it with your website. Sorry. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 04:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete Elfguy 05:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it before it spreads. Gentgeen 05:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. K1Bond007 05:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • To anyone even thinking of trying to claim the prize - Don't bother. You'll be mercilessly hunted down, blocked and have all your edits reverted before you can say omgmoderatorship. It'll just be a gigantic waste of your time and a small waste of ours. I repeat: Anyone linkspamming TMK will be summarily blocked and reverted without warning. --FCYTravis 05:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable website with enemies that troll Wikipedia. People that created article and put it on VfD are both newbies that somehow know to type {{vfd}}. These trolls are even less notable than GNAA. — Olathe 05:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect, and protect. The site news looks to be updated about twice a week, and the forums only have 3100 users. Since the site doesn't have its own domain, Alexa rank is impossible to determine, but Google only lists maybe 100 inbound links. --Carnildo 05:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not noteworthy and vanity. DarthVader 05:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to Mushroom Kingdom, and protect. This is the first time I've been strongly in favor of deleting or keeping an article that doesn't seem to be a "duh" issue. Well, it's still a "duh" one for me, anyway. Toothpaste 05:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a particularly noteworthy community of spammers. - Vague | Rant 05:47, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect and kill all sockpuppets. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Cyrius. Sockpuppets never win. This is hopeless vanity. Xoloz 06:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I think of Mario, I immediately think of... playing a videogame. I definately do NOT think about some crappy fansite. --Measure 06:47, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why not? --Phred Levi 06:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a nice site, and an article on it wouldn't hurt....Would it? Vidgmchtr 07:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete even though the guidelines for websites/forums/fansites are vague at best this site doesn't seem to meet the criteria for notability, also the massive dummy votes for keep by the forum users and their alleged contest to try to keep spam this topic doesn't convince me that this website is more than a place for anything more serious than pointless contests.Jtkiefer 07:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Amend Also amend a protect to the vote since page is at high risk for recreation if deleted. Jtkiefer 07:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

Nice try Jared, but all of your additions, except to this page, have been reverted. Dare I say, Pwnage? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've redirected the page speedily in the hopes that we can close this particular strange chapter in VfD history. Vandals are learning how to play the system, it appears. The page in question was created by User:Leger and then VfD'd one minute later by User:Paply. Perhaps we can find out if they were using the same IP... it increasingly appears this page was created and VfD'd in an attempt to discredit the forum in question. --FCYTravis 07:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "Give them an external link on the Mario Brothers page" -- sounds about right to me. And maybe part of a sentence describing the major mario fansites out there. +sj + 07:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, who know whats goniong on with this vfd, regardless the forum in question is not a notable website.--nixie 07:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the owner of The Mushroom Kingdom website, IRC channel, and message boards. I did not endorse this article about my site, so I must vote in favor of deletion. Talk of "spamming links" in order to "become a mod" is nonsense, because only TMK staff get operator status in the chatroom. In addition, I do not recognize any users posting on this VFD except for Phred and Vid. It appears to me that some people who don't like our website are causing a ruckus, hoping to get every link to our website removed from Wikipedia. And, yes, I created an account just to tell my side of this truly bizarre story. Deezer 08:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links were being added for the contest people mentioned, from your site, were running. Because of that, people added links to various pages, which we consider link spamming. That was why we removed them all except for this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seriously, I put every damned link up, a while before this page was an issue. It's no more spam than IMDB; I'm just putting up relative page links up. People don't do it, I do it. I know nothing about Deezer, other than the fact that he's working on Paper Mario TTYD Mariopedia information. I've no reason to spam, because I'm not even a member. I'm being bold (I believe that's a Wikipedia guideline), and adding them because I feel them relevant to the page. I don't wanna be a mod on TMK; I'm not even that big of a Mario fan. I'm more for the Nippon Ichi games (Disgaea being one of them), Zelda and Kirby. No bias coming from me. -- A Link to the Past 08:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • No such contest was ever held, sponsored, or endorsed by TMK. I seriously have no idea where this idea came from. (From the assistant webmaster of TMK). --MegaByte 16:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mushroom Kingdom. I do not object to deletion. <>Who?¿? 08:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but keep the link on the relevant mario page(s) only, not on every page that mentions the mario series. The google argument is just dumb: my site just lo fi comes up first (without quotes!) on google but there's no article on it, and there won't be any time soon. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 09:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would consider keeping it if the users didnt keep making sockpuppets and voting here over and over. I just crossed all their votes out. :-/ They're worse than GNAA. Redwolf24 09:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • question: should the history be wiped? I mean, this isn't a merge like most redirections, nothing from the article except the URL has remained, and that would certainly slow recreation/reversion as they'd have to make the article from scratch. Just a thought. GarrettTalk 12:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Nonnoteworthy fan forum. carmeld1 06:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable forumcruft. JamesBurns 07:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one of the thousands of webforums, apparent vandalism, poster child for speedy deletion procedure update - Skysmith 12:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I don't object to a deletion either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly redirect afterwards. Possibly protect given the horde of socks here. Radiant_>|< 11:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Mushroom Kingdom. — Asbestos | Talk 16:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kiand 17:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable forum with members attempting to spam links. Besides, it's pretty easy to tell how spammed the link looks when it opens up to a splash screen homepage, rather than a page on the article's particular Mario/Nintendo topic. Ruby Queen 04:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Dave Parsons

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Dick Birchum

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Elmer Higgins

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Michael Kirshenbaum

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

List of songs containing innuendos

[edit]

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

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

  • Delete What is the definition of innuendo? Who will maintain this list?--Porturology 9 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

List of songs that begin with non-music

[edit]

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

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

  • Delete. Infinite POV issues. --TheMidnighters 9 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)
  • Delete — the definition given at the top of the list is inherently POV, and it is unencyc too. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
  • Rename as "List of songs that begin with sound effects" as someone suggested on the Talk Page. That's much clearer. Daniel Case 9 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
  • Delete all "List of songs containing that begin with X". -- Cyrius|✎ 9 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:53 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 18:48 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, POV. --Idont Havaname 20:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if renamed per Daniel Case. --Mothperson 20:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, arbitrary, subjective... Again, I think a reasonable argument could be made that every song begins with some kind of "sound effect". Xoloz 06:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't disagree with the quibbling here over the original list creator's definition of "non-music," I do think that one can distinguish that from actual music. We could have something like "list of songs that begin with speech" to accomodate the one gray area. I think if you say "sound effects," most people know what you mean; otherwise that text would be red instead of blue.Daniel Case 19:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary, subjective and simply uninteresting. carmeld1 06:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 07:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable, essentially POV. And if you want to begin an argument of what kind of chords are music or not, prepare for a humongous edit war (though not from me). Rap is superficially speaking against the background of music. There is singing outside the pop and rock. Not to mention the fact that there is modern music that is far from melodic, composed of everyday objects banking each other (ie. sound effects), composed of words from nonexistent languages or are complete silence - Skysmith 12:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is somehow unencyclopedic, then what about List of songs featuring slap-bass? Or List of songs with scat-singing? Shouldn't we be putting them up for deletion too? Badly written definition or not, I think most people understand, especially after reading the song list, what this list is about, and indeed it has continued to be added to despite the VfD notice.Daniel Case 06:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I understand, the first would be something made with a musical instrument and the second should be List of scat songs or equivalent. And VFD notice does not stop editing. What I was trying to say that any part of music is music, regardless of its form, and categorizing "songs with non-music" is superfluous. Article about, say, music that includes certain kind of effect (say, reverb), included in the article about that effect (not as a separate list) would be better option - Skysmith 09:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

List of Semi-Christian metal bands

[edit]

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

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

  • Weak delete. Clean up a bit, if you can prove the article can have some potential, then maybe. Right now it seems rather unsubstantiated, POV, etc. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
  • Keep. --84.231.82.176 9 July 2005 10:27 (UTC) Note: This user's only edits are to the article in question and this VFD page contributions Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 10:37 (UTC)
  • weak delete per above. Not encyclopedic as of yet. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 10:37 (UTC)
  • I think it needs to be deleted, but then I'd say the same is true for most of the absurd number of band lists on WP so I'll abstain for now. --Moritz 9 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
  • Delete Founded on POV, containing references to Christianity does not constitute being "semi-Christian". "Christian themes" is POV, "dealt with in a positive way" is POV. Is being semi-anything notable anyway? What about being semi-Muslim, semi-Anarchist, semi-Agnostic? --TheMidnighters 9 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)
  • Delete Google for "Semi-christian metal" =1. Neologism and POV --Porturology 9 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
  • blah ok delete it then if you want. I think it's interesting to have a list of non-christian bands that have christian lyricks, and there were no place for those before that. // author of the page
    • And you really think an encyclopedia is the right place for it? Honestly, I'm wondering! (Note above, I don't think it's the right place for any of those lists.) --Moritz 9 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I'd like to see this page cleaned up, as I personally feel it could be useful. However, I would also be in favor of a move or redirect, as the title "semi-Christian" doesn't convey an NPV --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
  • Delete: seems to be there on the basis of some subjective agenda. And the assertion that themes of Christianity are being dealt with in a positive way could only ever be based on pure conjecture. Flowerparty 9 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)
  • Delete, no significant value jamesgibbon 9 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure I already put this up for VfD or something as a neologism ~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)
  • Delete my main concern is that it is based on interpretation of the lyrics and so is POV based on a neologism. Another religion might be able to conclude that the artists was really talking about their religion. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  • Delete, category is impossible to objectively define. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:54 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dcarrano. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Splash. I've had several edits on the Christian metal article, and there's such a dispute going on in the Christian metal scene over which bands are Christian that it's best to just let the reader decide for themselves. Let's not even go there. There is no such thing as a "Semi-Christian", and there's no such thing as a "Semi-Christian band"... unless you're talking about Christians who drive semis. --Idont Havaname 20:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Semi-Christian" is either nonsense, a neologism, or inherently POV. Xoloz 06:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is useless. Same reasons as everyone else said. NPOV and just nonsense. AshTM 07:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a combination of Dcarrano's point and the neologism point, adding concern about inherent unverfiability of such a list. The Literate Engineer 07:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the delete reasons given above. Quale 08:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly to have a list of semi-anythings. Subjective, vague. carmeld1 06:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective and unencyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sensible only if the band in question regard themselves as such, otherwise arbitrary based on outside reference - Skysmith 12:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Kdvd dvd disks

[edit]

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

  • Apparently KDVD is a deprecated name, the new title for the project is KVCD (kdvd.net redirects to kvcd.net). Note that we already have a decent article about KVCD. I'd vote for merge, but there doesn't appear to be anything worthy of merging that's not already mentioned in the other article. A redirect doesn't seem necessary, either. Delete. --Moritz 9 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing worth merging. JamesBurns 07:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moritz & JamesBurns. StopTheFiling 18:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

The Illuminus Organisation

[edit]

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

  • You clearly will not win an argument based on triviality, so much for the Wikipedia editors. - Comment by User:80.192.242.42, who vandalized this vfd notice.
  • Delete. No verifiable references, POV hoax. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)
  • Delete POV essay about non-notable forum. Gets 13 unique Googles, the rest are from within their site. Even some of the 13 refer to the Illuminati (of Angels and Demons fame). No traffic data available on Alexa. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonverifiable. mikka (t) 9 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. This site appears to be difficult to find information on because I think their only members involve young programmers, and they do not appear to make any profit from their web site. Thanks. user:80.192.242.42
  • Delete. I am the author of the Vfd entry, I don't know if making the entry counts as a vote or not. Samrolken 10:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. The statements aren't based on objective information since the political views are different, also the user Samrolken is degrading the members of the group and predisposing other voters by saying non verified information. - Vote by User:Guille1719, user's first edit.
  • Don't Delete. It seems that this site is a recognised anarchy group and is a firm part of larger organisations within the indymedia group, it is worthy of an entry even if the political views are not necessarily shared by some editors, myself included. - Vote by User:81.174.132.207, user's first edit.
  • Don't Delete. There is no pose of theart towards this information i see no reason why this should be deleted - Vote by User:204.244.83.90, user's only edit.
  • Don't Delete. From the evidence of the research I have done myself through querying friends of "those sort" it appears they have been heard of and have been active for many years in the "underground," many groups have lost members to this certain "organization" apparently. According to some programmers I know, the actual site is for "recruitement," as some sort of analysing thing or something. They've past ties with IndyMedia, as that guy said above... noteworthy. On a last point, from what i have seen on their website. I cannot find many problems with their spelling and Grammar as Samrolken has suggested. Although i can notice straight he has problems spelling. For one he spelt recognised as "Regognized" and organisation as "Organization". - Vote by User:62.255.64.6.
NOTE: The "Don't Delete" votes above by anonymous were all made from the United Kingdom, the home of the webpage in question. Also noteworthy is that they all voted the same "Don't Delete" vote, which is never used by wikipedia community members who vote to keep a page. For this reasons, these votes appear to be sock-puppets.


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

  • Do Not Delete Admittedly the page does need to be cleaned up, however, one cannot deny that the organisation itself exists, can one? I refer one to the dictionary definition of; organisation (www.dictionary.com). a : the act or process of organizing or of being organized b : the condition of being organized. It does seem that a group of persons have come together through shared political views, therefore they have organised to become the afore mentioned organisation. Tupence added. Eris
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Emogoth

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Oxsoralen

[edit]

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

  • Weak keep, actually, I want to withdraw this, if it's still possible. At first I thought it was pseudoscientific advertising, but on some deeper research doesn't seem so. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a real drug. 38,000 google hits. Pburka 9 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
  • Either keep or move to methoxsalen (the generic name).DS 9 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Pburka. JamesBurns 07:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Guerrillaware

[edit]

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

  • Keep: An ever-increasing reality in the face of software patents. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)
    • I am not challenging the reality of the article's content but the use of the term "Guerrillaware". Google returns 17 hits [32], some of them relate to real warfare terminology or the like. Probably a couple of them relate to the article's content, that's all. --Edcolins July 9, 2005 12:54 (UTC)
  • Delete: Neologism. Also the definition is even suspect. J E Bailey 9 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism at best, dodgily defined neologism at worst -Splash 9 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
  • Delete per Splash -Harmil 9 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Quale 08:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Kelly Youga

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Monkey hanger

[edit]
  • Strong Keep This is true I am from Hartlepool and this story has been told for years, Monkey Legend

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

  • Strong Keep, as a Monkey Hanger myself, I can confirm that it's NOT a hoax, and it's certainly notable enough, I think. It's a term used by people all over Britain to refer to Hartlepudlians. See Hartlepool. The article needs work though; I'll help with that if it survives. jamesgibbon 9 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)
  • Keep It is definitely not a neologism. The legend comes from the 17th century I think. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
  • Keep Please. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
  • Keep Have a look at This article. Too crazy to be fake, anyway. NowWhereDidIStickThatBanana? 9 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is absolutely true. A few years ago, the citizen of Hartlepool elected a man in a monkey-costume as Mayor — he called himself 'Angus the Monkey. Yes, really. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
    • Not quite as foolish as it sounds, since the guy in the monkey costume was the mascot for the Hartlepool football team: so it was an official monkey costume. --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
    • This is true. I remember laughing when I heard that his main policy was along the lines of "free bananas to school children". I'm slightly surprised it's taken until now to get a WP article, actually. -Splash 9 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
  • Cleanup Poorly formatted, but Google says it's real.
  • Keep. This story even showed up in Get Fuzzy. --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real. If you go to Hartlepool's website you can probably confirm it - certaintly the identity of the Mayor will be confirmed there. Morwen - Talk 9 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can confirm it's a real story. The Stuart Drummond story is true, too. Weird stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:14, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems correct provided the phrase 'according to local legend' is left in. There is a good write-up of the Mayor on the Guardian website. The BBC have Realplayer Video of a telephone interviewwith the Mayor and a write-up of the legend and discovery of a monkey bone on the beach. --Timffl 00:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting tidbit of British history/culture. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Edcolins 14:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Spiritual health

[edit]

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

  • Delete. Essay/opinion piece. -Aranel ("Sarah") 9 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)
  • Cleanup Highly charged, but clearly notable topic. This is a major element of modern, post-deity (e.g. "new age") mythology which has over 200,000 hits on Google -Harmil 9 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)
  • keep: the trajectory, significance and potentially enlightening consequences of the luminosity at the end of the tunnel are serious health issues for many. The Wikipedia does not need to be blinded to the light of this topic. Ombudsman 9 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing here to salvage --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
  • Cleanup, currently completely unencyclopedic / solicits opinions, but topic is notable. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:55 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolute tosh from start to finish jamesgibbon 23:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup notable concept that many believe in, although very poorly written as of now. You (Talk) 22:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Koomaster

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Ehsan Lotfi

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Mohammad Reza Molaei

[edit]

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

  • Delete - I agree that I was wrong to try to speedy this, but it is one of those obvious 'does not assert notability' articles that will abviously fail in Vfd. --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:BIO. Kappa 9 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)
  • Delete, FWIW, there are 18 Google hits and I don't think most of them are him. Poor love can have a page if he does something notable while in the army. -Splash 9 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity with no claim to notability. --Etacar11 03:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Karl Scherer's Greatest Hits

[edit]

This is a VfD concerning

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

They are advertising spam concerning Zillions Games.

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

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

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

  • Delete ~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)
  • Delete. Given the scope and result of the previous VfD on this stuff I would sort of think these could sort of be posthumously tacked on to that VfD and deleted outright. But since we're already here I guess we can do it this way. -R. fiend 9 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
  • Delete, although some (not most) of Scherer's contributions unrelated to his own games should stay, his Zillions stuff (other than the Zillions of Games article itself, apparently) should go. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:57 (UTC)
  • Delete, Looks like a lot of spam. --Mysidia 9 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)
  • Delete per the other discussions for deleting this material. Thank you for your diligent work in tracking this stuff down, Ril. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 18:52 (UTC)
User:Andreas Kaufmann tracked this particular group down. ~~~~ 22:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Bondage hook

[edit]

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

—Ghakko 9 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

What would be the names of those three articles? --Easyas12c 9 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
At first the article was titled nose hook. It was on nose hooks and had also some information on mouth hooks and the general term face hook. When I added the rest it seemed that separate articles for all of them would have made the articles very short. They also seemed to be easier to explain as a whole. I'm not sure, if bondage hook is a good name. --Easyas12c 9 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)
It's okay to have short articles. After all, that's what stubs are for.
By the way, I thought it was a nice write-up. ;-) I just thought the name was a little confusing. —Ghakko 9 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic. Pburka 9 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. The number of humans who have had the pleasure of a nose hook is too small to warrent insertion inclusion here. YouSaidYou'reADoctor,Right? 9 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
    • By that logic Human spaceflight ought to be deleted. I suspect more people have used nose hooks than have travelled to space. Pburka 9 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could use some clean-up though. TheMonkofDestiny
  • Keep, encyclopedic. Splitting would be ok too. I wonder how User:Aaron Brenneman knows how many people have used nose hooks, and if he also knows how many people have watched porn videos featuring these items. Kappa 00:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the article a bit disturbing, as I'm sure the nominator did.... but this is an encylopedia. -- BMIComp (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no value judgment actual or implied in my vote to delete. I'm sure a nose hook, face hook, or um, other hook between consenting adults is a lovely thing. The article is NPOV and factual, so let us make no mistakes about wowserism being the problem here. The problem here is that, unlike spaceflight there is the question of interest and impact on society. GotMyShibariPatchInBoyScouts 12:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the name is confusing, move or rearrange it, but I think the article content is useful. --me_and 11:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I didn't have any issues with the content of the article and simply wanted to know if it was a good idea to split it up into separate stubs. I know I'm already abusing the VfD mechanism somewhat, but could the people who voted "keep" further indicate if they'd like a split? Sorry for the trouble, folks, and thanks for your patience. —Ghakko 11:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there's a consensus to keep the article, and Ghakko doesn't want it deleting himself, just rearranging, is it not worth removing it from VfD? I'd do it myself, but I don't know if there's any set procedure... --me_and 20:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Arambilet

[edit]

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


  • Weak keep. Try your google search again[34]. Remember that google is a poor indicator of notability for artists. Pburka 9 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
  • Comment - I tried the whole name - not to mention, that 267 hits aren't too great either. Seem all to be vanity propagations. My username has way more, heck. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think he's a notable as an artist/author... but the first to use ASCII Graphics? Also, most of the articles from google are in spanish, as he's from Santo Domingo... this might be why he has few google hits. In the US, 54% of the population are internet users, however, in Santo Domingo 18% of the population are internet users. (Source: CIA World Factbook) -- BMIComp (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note, five of his books are on Amazon. -- BMIComp (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems half hoax, half vanity. drini ☎ 16:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established, likely nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 07:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Look at such pages as http://sololiteratura.com/autrepdominicanaag.htm or http://www.bnrd.gov.do/prosa2/19572.htm. The latter seems to be a govt. library page (sure, this could be a hoax, and so could Grotius), where the man is said to have published, in 1978, the first Dominican Republic story written on perforated cards [ie., the old IBM cards] and the following year his first graphic pomes, using the same procedure. Maybe the article's author meant to write first in his country. In any case, doing this sort of stuff in "78/'79 in a place like the DR sure impresses me. He especially seems worth including considering all the bands, movies, and diddly t.v. personalities Wik includes with-out a worry. Is there as strong tv./movie/video-game bias to Wik? They guy has published a number of works - No hoax: check the LoC catalogue, which lists three. Kdammers 06:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Sex magic

[edit]

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

  • Keep. I'm almost completely uninterested in paganism, but even I've heard of this. 72 000 google hits once you exclude the Red Hot Chili Peppers. See [35], for example. Strange belief systsms are encyclopedic. Pburka 9 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. If there's anything verifiable in here, roll it into the existing magick article. Not enough info to merit an article of its own. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
  • Merge with magick. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:00 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely not a neologism, but usually spelt "sex magick". Connected to Aleister Crowley. ~~~~ 00:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Some notability. JamesBurns 07:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. It is a valid subject, but this is definitely POV. It is written from the perspective that magic is real, and it gives nothing like a scholary overview of the subject. --Fergus 02:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not neologism. At least the initial paragraphs should be from the perspective of believers / knowledgeable people on the subject. If the validity of "magic" itself is questioned/disputed, such views would belong in a controversy section. Intersofia 01:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. I'm a practitioner of sex magic. This article is of poor quality and cites no sources. A recommended source would be Thelemapedia's entry on the subject.[36] Aleister Crowley wrote some useful information on this subject too. Morningstar2651 06:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. It's entirely valid, and i'm sure there's a history for the term going back a decade or two; which is enough to put it in the OED, at least. The article is very POV, and desperately needs to be completely revised and brought up to a reasonable standard of quality. Lucky Number 49 23:08, July 22 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

David Rajan

[edit]

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

  • Delete - Except to say that you can put just about anything on you user page. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. President of the Indian Arthroscopy Society and the Indo-German Orthopaedic Foundation. Pburka 9 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not sure they are too notable organizations, though. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
Comment. 6300 google hits for IAS, which is pretty high for a specialist organization in a non-Western country. It also seems to be known as the Indian Arthroscopy Association". Pburka 9 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
Further comment. But a president of it? The IAS is borderline-notable, but an elected president, even less so. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Faith Freedom

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Josh Tiffey

[edit]

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

  • Delete. Despite his considerate life experience. Pburka 9 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd speedied this, but someone removed the speedy. Does an article like this really require full Vfd??? Bill 9 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teen vanity. And he will soon learn that he does not possess "considerate life experience" yet. ;) --Etacar11 04:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 07:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Lefty and righty

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

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

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

Thomas Howard Bright

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Asian Cup 2007

[edit]

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

  • Keep — I think the differences listed for this event make it interesting enough to retain. — RJH 9 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
  • Keep. Planned events can be written about - and even if it is abandoned we still would want to explain why. Can you give a reason why we would want to delete this but not, say, 2012 Summer Olympics? Morwen - Talk 9 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a few very basic problems with that argument:
    • If it were cancelled and we explained why, that would be after the fact. This is not.
    • The existence of other dubious articles should have no effect on the VfD of this one.
      • If your article were titled Preparations for the 2012 Summer Olympics there would be no problem with that one. That is actually what it is about, after all!
      • Changing the title of this article to Preparations for the Asian Cup 2007 would not unfortunately avoid the problem. Is there currently construction of new stadiums happening? Are governments pushing through legislation to get ready for the Asia Cup?
    • It may sound like semantics, but planned events do not merit articles. Sufficiently notable planning for events may merit an article. This one, like AB'sPlansToEatTheCakeHeJustBaked does not. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
  • Keep, we already have 2018 Winter Olympics. That's 11 years ahead of this one. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
  • Keep. It appears that some are asking for this deletion because it is less notable then the Olympics, and less on whether planned events have a place in wikipedia (it does if there is enough material). The Asian Cup is a major sports event in the World's most populous continent.--Huaiwei 21:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid information on a topic of current interest. Please don't try to cramp Wikipedia on the basis of some outdated notions derived from old fashioned reference works. CalJW 23:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, especially as qualification is due to start soon. Article could do with some cleanup though. Qwghlm 20:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just cleaned it up a little, should read a bit better... Qwghlm 20:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, predictable event which verifiable information can be added to as preparations continue. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Individual Bible verses

[edit]

Intro

[edit]

This is a VfD concerning the principle that

  • All Individual Bible verses are/are not automatically noteworthy enough to have separate articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Votes

[edit]

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

  • Merge ~~~~ 9 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
  • Keep Harmil 9 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is an inapropriate use of vfd, and comments are being inapropriately moved away from the discussion. Kappa 9 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
  • Merge Delete Abstain Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
My feelings on this have not changed, I'm trying to embrace the need for consensus. I underestimated the depth of feeling this topic would engender. brenneman(t)(c)
  • Keep, VfD is about deleting pages, not debating contested merges. There is obviously a need for a discussion over how these verses should be formatted, but the proper venue for this would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible or Category talk:Bible verses not here. Also within the last two weeks we have had two VfDs on this same issue Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1 (strong consensus to keep) and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses (no consensus, plurality in favour of merging), not to mention four other previous VfDs on this same issue. - SimonP July 9, 2005 15:54 (UTC)
  • Keep this proposal is not well thought through - see my comments below --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
  • Keep. All verses within a well known text are notable. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
  • Merge. I shudder to think of the consfusion that would be wrought by articles on every bible verse. This has nothing to do with notability (not in my view a criterion for deletion) and everything to do with coherence. Francis Davey 9 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  • Keep. 24 at 9 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)
  • Merge. Encyclopedias are about context. Individual verses out of context are bumperstickers, like single lines of Shakespeare or anything. This does violence to the writers' intent. --Wetman 9 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge in some fashion other than the above (per message posted by ~~~~ above). This is a poorly conceived proposal. Some of these consist only of various translations of the scripture; they should be removed. I think it is slightly abusive to categorize every scripture except John 3:16 as NN, since they vary and no hard and fast rule can apply.(see comments below)--Scimitar 9 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
  • Merge -- Darwinek 9 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
  • Merge Wyss 9 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
  • Merge Abstain. The exact merge logistics should be a separate voteing process and not confused with this one, unfortanatly its going to force many voters to vote Keep who dont agree with the details of the merge :( Somthing needs to be done, I agree not every verse should have its own article, I am not sure an on-going edit war is the right spirit for me to weigh in with. Waiting for a more neutral and level headed forum where both sides agree before its put to public vote. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks:The_New_Testament. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 16:53 (UTC)
  • Transwiki as above. It is relevant, but perhaps not encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Uncle G. While the matter on a large scale is encyclopedic, separate articles for every verse is Biblecruft. — JIP | Talk 9 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I would be open to people merging some of these, with 100+ verses up for deletion I think that a blanket keep is the best idea and if people want to be bold and merge smaller articles that are part of small passages then they can do so. JYolkowski // talk 9 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am voting mostly to insure that some other admin gets to sort this vote out. Beyond that, the text of the New Testament contains too much information and has developed too much scholarly analysis over the centuries to be reasonably contained in articles broken at the book or even chapter level. As the traditional division by verse is the de-facto standard for subdividing bible text below the chapter level, it seems like the most reasonable way to organize Wikipedia's articles on this very important religious, literary, and historical work. --Allen3 talk July 9, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
    • N.b. for those that don't quite understand the context of the first sentence, Allen 3 was the admin who closed the Matthew 1:verses VfD and declared there to have been no concensus. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
  • Merge, Transwiki, or Delete (and I'd prefer one of the second two--no, I have not carefully evaluated each particular element of the proposal). Every time 'what's encyclopedic' gets expanded (most recently elementary schools) recent changes and newpages patrol gets even more overtaxed. I'm finding much more weeks- or even months-old vandalism and crap edits than I did a year ago. I firmly believe this inclusionism is a serious threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. If everyone voting "keep" commits to spending at least an additional 10 hours per week on recent changes patrol, I'll consider changing my vote. Also, what JIP, Wetman, Aaron Brenneman, Ril, Dcarrano, and Scimitar said. Niteowlneils 9 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
  • Keep them all; there has been an enormous amount of commentary on individual Bible verses in the last two thousand years, much of it of encyclopedic value, and I think it's best organized at the verse level. Since we're not paper I think it's the way to go. Antandrus (talk) 9 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
  • Merge per Uncle G's suggestion. It's the best compromise between keeping them separately and deleting them all. --Angr/t?k t? mi 9 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is too many changes to reasonably evaluate all at once, each merge/deletion needs to be considered on its own merits, and I think many of these verses are notable enough that they should have be organized as separate articles. --Mysidia 9 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I generally support the idea of some restructuring here, I strongly feel VfD is not the forum to resolve this, per SimonP. Xoloz 9 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Although a more comprehensive policy should be set, this proposal is the best available, so I vote merge. BlankVerse ∅ 9 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
  • Keep - Every individual verse in the Bible already has multiple chapters written on them in Bible commentaries. Wikipedia should attempt to summarize that information and cite references as the current verse articles are doing. Wikipedia should be the de facto first commentary on the internet. Samw 9 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The merits of the articles aside, this is an inappropriate nomination as VFD on some of these just closed DAYS ago. Nor is VFD the place to discuss details of planned merges. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:58, 2005 July 9 (UTC)
    • To quickly note the basis for a keep: substantial volume of scholarly work on Gospel verses, extreme importance of the text as a whole, etc. Notabiltiy is significant and these articles are well-referenced. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:07, 2005 July 9 (UTC)
  • Merge, but let's slow down. Our naming conventions require that articles be at their most common names, and most of the episodes in the life of Christ have standard names. These are where people would expect to find them. I don't know them all (but can research them), but I know a few. I'm signing here and at the end of the list below. Geogre 19:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "The Birth of Jesus" = "The Incarnation"
    2. "The Visit of the Magi" = "The adoration of the Magi" (n.b. the lower case for terms beyond the initial one)
    3. "Jesus' Escape to Egypt" = "The flight of the Holy Family"
    4. "The Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist" = "The commission" and "Baptism of Christ"
    5. "The Temptation of Jesus" = "The temptations of Christ"
    6. "Beginning Jesus' Ministry" = ? There is a term for it that's commonplace, but I don't know it.
    7. "Calling of the First Disciples" = ? ibid.
    8. "The Ressurrection of Jesus" = "The Resurrection" (capital letter because it is a pronominal event)
    9. "Jesus' Appearances" = "Manifestations of Christ" or ? (another term that I've forgotten, but the catch phrases at the top of a KJV should tell us).

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

    • Hmm. Those are not precisely the "common names" that I would have chosen. I don't have any of my books with me at the moment to look them up, but I suspect that we'll find that there are some differences in common usage in different Christian traditions (for example, those that don't use KJV). If we end up going with names like this, we'll probably want to find some source that can be agreed to be reasonably authoritative and go with that for consistency. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Bible is the single most important document in the history of western civilization. There has been more commentary on the Bible that any other work. (In other debates on this subject, the Magna Carta has been brought up as a counter example of a foundational work of westen society that is not treateds at this level of granularity. I can, upon request, provide bibliographic information on commentary of every book of the bible from every century since the 3rd century and from every country in the west. Of no other dococument can such a claim be made.) Please not that if the consensus is to delete, or merge, that Matthew 1:18 has a significant amount of information of art historical importance that cannot be merged easily in any suggested plan. Please note that the artwork in question pertains to the letters of the text, not the birth of Jesus. Dsmdgold 20:01, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep there is no valid reason for any of these to be deleted. The very fact that all Bible verse pages are being lumped into one vfd entry simply proves that this vfd is ridiculous. freestylefrappe 20:18, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 20:25, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, allow articles on notable individual verses. I also strongly agree with Wetman (about the importance of context) and Francis Davey (about coherence). On a similar VfD I have pointed out that the division into verses is a highly arbitrary and not particularly helpful way of cutting up the text of the Bible. — mark ✎ 20:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep after looking at a few of these articles, it seems that there is enough to say that's encylopedic about many individual Bible verses. (To be fair though, I'll say that may have a pro-Bible bias and this may be influencing my vote.) You (Talk) 20:56, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This would make a great commentary (I'm not sure that it's at all encyclopedic, but whatever). Even most print commentaries will have more than one verse per section. It makes more sense to discuss a passage as a whole (or even a significant portion of a passage) than to isolate individual verses, anyway. You can then say things that are more interesting and relevant. The verse numbering is long-standing and convenient for reference purposes but fairly artificial as a way of breaking up the text. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atheist votes keep CalJW 23:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above and transwiki. I'm convinced we should have a wikibible. — Phil Welch 23:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks or a Wikibible or whatever, leaving appropriate interwiki links and redirects to general pages here on wikipedia. Failing that, merge in some form, as above or otherwise. kmccoy (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Transwiki. Not suitable to keep every article above. Alex.tan 04:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Individual Bible verses really aren't encyclopedic on their own (with few exceptions), they are best addressed in the context of others. -R. fiend 07:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep David Sneek 07:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Individual articles need to be judged on their own merits for VfD. Those listed are keep. Samw 10:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
USER HAS ALREADY VOTED ~~~~ 11:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as important literature with a large corpus of accumulated commentary, much of which is notable in itself. SimonP does excellent work on all these articles. Although there may be some possibilities for merging, I don't think this is the right place to discuss that. Uppland 11:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or merge. —kooo 15:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested by initiator. Verses are important in their context, which can be far better described in a smaller number of somewhat longer, more coherent, and less repetitive articles. A whole mess of redirects will still allow someone to search by individual verse, and no information need be lost. A merge will substantially improve Wikipedia's coverage of individual verses. CDC (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep em all. Biblical verses are part of an notable and well-established body of belief. Please be advised that I intend to vote keep for all mass nominations of articles as I do not have the time or inclination to look at each article. Mass nominations are not the best way to establish policy. Capitalistroadster 01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. Individual Bible verses are not inherently notable outside of the context in which they are occur. Kaibabsquirrel 01:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not what VfD is for. The merging proposal is interesting, but it should be discussed in the appropriate place. Factitious 03:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almafeta 03:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per George's commentary below. JamesBurns 06:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. -- user:Zanimum
  • Merge. individual bible verses not automatically notable. Wikipedia is not a biblical concordance. carmeld1 18:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Passages from the Bible are notable and have a high degree of cultural and historical significance. Organizing content by chapter/verse makes perfect sense.Tobycat 21:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a library! Nova77 22:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia doesn't need articles about every single verse in the Bible. Merge any useful content, basically as per UncleG's suggestion. - Mike Rosoft 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I originally voted to merge on the Matthew 1 verses VfD, but having read most of the articles in question now, I think they are encyclopedic, neutral (or at least represent most points of view) and I learned things from most of them. If we can have pages on each Governor of Ohio or each US Secretary of the Treasury, or a list of asteroids, why not each verse (or other unit) in various sacred writings? Ruhrfisch 00:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
the above user has 1 previous edit - almost definitely a sockpuppet ~~~~ 01:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Governor of Ohio or each US Secretary of the Treasury, or a list of asteroids, are seperate articles is because they are noteworthy in their own right. Matthew 1:9 is not. ~~~~ 01:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sockpuppet (and had to look up what the accusation meant). I just joined as a member, although I have been doing minor edits anonymously for a while. I found these verses on a random article link, voted on a previous VfD on this topic (my first vote), and was sent a message asking me to vote on this VfD. (I don't know how to send a message to another User, hence this edit back to User:-Ril-). I am not opposed to merging in some other manner (say by blocks of like verses in a given book) or transwikiing them to an annotated Bible, I just think Uncle G's suggestion is too crude an instrument for merging these as they currently stand. If there were a Geneaolgy of Jesus article established, for example, I can see a later vote to split it in two, into a Matthew version and a Luke version. Ruhrfisch 17:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
You have 3 edits at the current time, 1 is the previous vote you mention, 1 the vote above, and 1 your comment above. You have 0 edits to articles 0 edits to other VFDs 0 experimental edits 0 edits to absolutely anything else. Further, your comments above feign a need to learn how to edit, despite your ability to produce the edit User:-Ril- without copying the whole signature ~~~~, and a feigned lack of knowledge which nevertheless indicates that you know that users can have messages sent to them. Indeed, your speech is classic "I am definitely not a sockpuppet, signed --sockpuppet". This is the perfect example of sockpuppet behaviour.
I am aware that I sent you a message to vote, but I did that to everyone else as well whose vote may have indicated that they supported Uncle G's proposal, of which only part covered the previous VfD, and thus they had to vote again, here, for it to cover all of his proposal,, and I wasn't paying careful attention to sockpuppetry at the time. What is notable is that you made edits between those two times, and you still have 0 edits not related to this VFD or the prior one. ~~~~ 22:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I signed up as a member to vote on the original VfD (and not to be called a liar). I am new to Wikipedia but I have been doing html for 10 years and started doing it with a line editor, so copying the first part of "[ [User:-Ril-" and adding two square close brackets "] ]" did not tax my skills too much. I like Wikipedia and joined to vote on something on which I had an opinion. I have now set up a User:Ruhrfisch page. As usual I forgot to sign in when I did it, then did so with a later edit, so you can check my home ISP number and see I have made other edits (like the description of the photo on the Cologne Germany page or adding the word chemist to the Primo Levi page lead sentence). As a new user, I can see why people complain about nobody joining if this is what my simple votes get. I repeat, I know about messages from other users because I was sent one, turns out by my new friend User:-Ril-. Thanks. Ruhrfisch 23:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
User:-Ril- says "your speech is classic "I am definitely not a sockpuppet, signed --sockpuppet". This is the perfect example of sockpuppet behaviour.". I would say this is classic sockpuppet paranoia. Amazingly enough, both sockpuppets and real users deny that they are sockpuppets when challenged, so it's a Catch 22. Perhaps in future -Ril- could just cite the edit history and let the closing admin decide how much to weigh the vote. Kappa 00:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a bit like the old witchcraft test 'if they admit it - burn them. If they don't - well then they are obviously witches since witches always lie!'. Once the accusation is made you're damned. However, in fairness to User:-Ril-, it does seem like a common assumption here. --Doc (?) 00:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If sockpuppets are such a problem, why not introduce the Wiki equivalent of the franchise, i.e. in order to vote users must have a verifiable email address (which could still be kept secret), have had their user ID at least some minimum period of time (a month?) and have made a minimum number of edits (10?). My guess is this has been all discussed before, so this will be my last word on the VfD page. Sorry for any confusion my well intentioned vote caused. Ruhrfisch 14:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • The current equivalent of what you suggest is generally considered to be 1 month prior to the VfD starting, or at least edits prior to the VfD starting, and a minimum of 200 edits. Opinions on the matter vary however, although these are the most standard. ~~~~ 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand the above discussion correctly this is what happened: User:-Ril- asked User:Ruhrfisch to vote here, despite the fact that Ruhrfisch had made only one previous edit, because on the basis of the previous VfD he expected him to support the proposal to merge. Ruhrfisch however changed his position and voted keep, causing -Ril- to challenge his vote - because of a lack of previous edits - and accuse him of being a sockpuppet. Wow. David Sneek 17:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I asked everyone to vote here who had voted a certain way on the other VfD simply because their vote appeared to be for a suggestion (Uncle G's) that actually covered more than just that VfD, so if they wished their indicated wishes at that VFD to be carried out in full, it would be necessary for them to vote here as well. I.e. everyone whose vote was technically, or appeared to be, for a wider vfd than existed at that point, but was covered by this vfd. This included Ruhrfisch. Since issues touching on ideology like this one are intrinsically liable to attract sockpuppet votes by people of that ideology, I have been checking out votes that could be such sockpuppets, discovering Ruhrfisch to be amongst them. ~~~~ 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps a good time to point out the Wikipedia tradition of assuming good faith. While we need to be vigilant about sockpuppetry, it must be done with a measure of balance and compassion. Tobycat 18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I truly pity the sockpuppets. ~~~~ 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Albatross2147 02:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A single VfD page, while far better than dozens of individual VfD pages, is not the proper way to dispose of such a large number of articles. As I have said a few times now, start a policy consensus discussion, so that we can get down to principles, rather than articles. NatusRoma 05:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my comments below. Wesley 05:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how the existence of these verses in Wikipedia could be a problem. Note we have articles on single TV show episodes - are they more important than Bible verses? Karol 19:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The question is not are they more important to you, but are they more notable to knowledge. I.e. does Matthew 1:9 merit discussion in an encyclopedia. Note that I wrote encyclopedia and not bible commentary. ~~~~ 22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Transwiki or Delete -- no question that we can't be this microscopic in Wikipedia or we descend into an impossible depth and server burden. Ask yourself, not how important is the Bible, but how much should a general user with no knowledge of Christianity expect to find when they look up the Bible or a book of the Bible in an encyclopedia. For consistency, I also would merge or delete or Transwiki all individual TV show epidodes, individual characters in video games, individual characters in LOTR, individual chapters in any other book, individual anything that isn't an important individual. DavidH 22:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a very useful resource to have for people who are reading the Bible. Christian or not, the Bible is a very key part of western culture. Also, a series of articles like this for every single Bible verse is easy enough to do; there are many Bible commentaries that cover every single last Bible verse which are old enough to be public domain. Samboy 00:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree. But that is, in a way, my point. This is an encyclopedia, not a resource for people who are reading the Bible. That would be a Bible commentary or concordance, which belongs in WikiBooks. ~~~~ 06:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But wikipedia isn't a commentary. It is an encyclopedia. ~~~~ 11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valuable knowledge for people who are interested in the bible verses. The merge/keep decisions should be made by the primary editors, not people who may be unfamiliar with the subject Sam Vimes 16:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Gadzooks. There are plenty of online bibles around and it serves no encylopedic purpose to reproduce mostly unnotable individual verses here. older≠wiser 21:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • In general, keep. Certainly doesn't damage our credibility, and can be valuable. I'd be perfectly willing to see these merged together in larger units (e.g. Biblical chapters) when appropriate, but I Bible verses in general as appropriate topics, which seems to be the issue here. Ditto for the Koran and any other comprably important religious works. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have been discussing the ambiguity (voting to keep in general but merge into larger units) of the above vote with the above user, and they have said (see my - ~~~~ - talk page) that the above vote is to be understood as a vote to merge non-notable verses, but to keep notable ones. ~~~~ 21:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that accurately represents my view: I think it is very hard to determine a priori which Bible verses merit articles. For example, a seemingly trivial verse might merit an article on the basis of controversy over its translation, or Kabbalistic significance, or for being the sole occurrence of particular Hebrew or Greek words in the Bible, or for alluding to a person or event for which we have non-biblical evidence. I personally am not interested in looking at the list of individual verses listed above to see if any of them merit inclusion. I think we need to form a policy on this, and I think VfD is a blunt instrument with which to do so. With respect to such a policy: I doubt that every verse of the Bible merits an article (though probably every chapter does); I think there would be a range of sane policy here. Certainly, though, not every verse deserves a standalone article: at most, some should be redirects to larger, more useful articles. I think that making them redirects has the merit of making less likely the re-creation of trivial articles in the future. As a vote, any keep or merge with redirect will satisfy me. I am opposed to deletion of the material, open to its consolidation, and—in the event of such consolidation—weakly inclined to support the retention of the existing titles as redirects. If this is too complicated to count as a vote in this VfD, so be it. As I said, I think we need to form a policy on this, and I think VfD is a blunt instrument with which to do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (conditional) but only if the verse can be supported with an actual article then fine, keep it, but if the verse is just left "hanging in the air" with nothing or hardly anything to it, it should be merged until such time as it can be "fleshed out" and shown to have meaningful content worthy of a Wikipedia article (isn't that the way things work in general all over Wikipedia in any case?) Or maybe it's just a case of legitimate stub articles. Please do not rush to judgment! IZAK 05:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. No Account 21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because the versus make sense in context and Uncle G has preserved treatment of topics. If his divisions are not perfect they can be altered later to the satisfaction of the community (in a policy consensus if it comes to that). Davilla 12:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I believe the policy says something about "mutual respect" and welcoming newcommers. I'll remove my vote if it's not allowed. Anyways it's not a democracy, so it might be better to just add support:
The division of verses is quite arbitrary and wasn't originally part of the bible anyways. Each being so short, separate entries turns Wikipedia into an annotated list of quotes. Davilla 17:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should leave your vote, but it will probably be discounted by the closing admin. There is nothing preventing you from commenting, but votes from users with under 200 edits, and less than 1 months edit history, are usually treated as suspect. While this unfortunately cuts out any newcomers, it also cuts out Sockpuppets created to sway a vote. ~~~~ 19:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes more sense. I've seen those allegations thrown persistently. In that case, is anyone else voting here from an ISP in Taiwan? Davilla 20:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ril/Uncle G. Context is the key to understanding the bible at times. Breakdowns of individual verses is not really helpful or encyclopedic; Re-wordings in plain english might be useful, but this is not the place for them. However, I do support articles on verses such as John 3:16, since it has a history in popular culture as well. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 16:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki to wikibible (or whatever, ifever that project gets off the ground). To me at least, the "source text" argument is unconvincing. I haven't looked at all the articles in question, but from what I've seen, there is more in each of the articles than just the source text, and in light of the nature of the articles, it would be a nuisance to the reader to not include the text of each verse. Tomer TALK 20:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Jonathunder 22:02, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
  • Merge. Verses need context to make complete sense. - Nabla 01:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should go on some related wiki project. drini ☎ 03:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to be an incredibly poor idea that the Wikipedia should contain particular pages on particular verses of the bible; except with really important cases. There's nothing important about this one. We really don't need the Wikipedia to become the bible; we have the bible for that. WolfKeeper 16:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Akubhai 20:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

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

  • I would vote yes for a couple of the proposals, but this change is too sweeping, and some of those verses are the basis for entire sects of christianity. -Harmil 9 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
Please note that the above rationale was amputated from my vote. It was not a separate comment, and I consider this an abuse of the VfD process which explicitly states that the rationale should go with the vote, and is perhaps more important than the vote itself. By moving my rationale away from the voting section, other voters are encouraged not to consider the reasons for previous votes. At best this vote is highly irregular.... -Harmil 9 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
Abject apologies. No Offense intended. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
  • this is an inappropriate use of VFD. Kappa 9 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
Please read the discussion previously held at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, and not that that, much more limited proposal ended in lack of consensus. -Harmil 9 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
This comment of mine was also moved, and its current position is wildly innapropriate (I was not responding to Aaron Brenneman, but to the opening text in this section. This move also seems to be inspired by a desire to change the flow of conversation for the reader, and render comments by those opposed to the merge far less coherent. At this point, I simply must join those calling for the invalidation of this VfD. -Harmil 9 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
Actually, that was me shooting myself in the head and the toe at the same time. (This is easy with your foot in your mouth, by the way.) The refactor I apologised for was the same one that pushed this comment down, if I understand your objection. I blame the drugs. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for jumping to conclusions. I retract my comments which were based on rash assumptions about the move that I could have resolved for myself by looking at the history. Thanks for explaining -Harmil 16:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I've changed my vote from the weak-kneed Merge I gave them before to the Delete I reckon they actually deserve. If a particular verse has encyclopedic merit, write a nice fat article about that verse. Lists are bad for Wikipedia. Have a look at this to see the kind of vacuous content lists eventually get filled with. Strike them all out. I'm trying to avoid wikistress over this, but barely succeeding. Try and imagine that this was a list of (for example) Buddhist scriptures. A very long and detailed list, with each paragraph having its own article. Do you imagine that would receive much support when it reached VfD? Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
  • I take it that all those voting merge have considered each of the specific merge proposals before them and agree that in each and every instance this is the most appropriate merge?? Gosh, what a lot of though must be put into every vote. --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
  • Some of these deserve merging; no question. Some of them don't, so I oppose the proposal as a whole. Each scripture article should stand or fall on its own merits, and although scriptures aren't automatically notable, some have had an impact as a single verse that implies that they are. If an encyclopedic articles can be written about a verse, it should be. For instance, much theory about the trinity rests on John 1:1 (though I notice it doesn't have an article). Obviously, though, some of these need to be merged. --Scimitar 9 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
  • I still think that Transwiki to Wikibooks:The_New_Testament is the right move here. This is so clearly an annotation project! What it's going to do is reproduce the text, and discuss various interpretations of it. That's exactly what an annotation project is, and there is a section of Wikibooks called THE ANNOTATED NEW TESTAMENT that no one is using!! I really don't get it. Another big issue is that, although UncleG has done a good job of dividing the first couple of books of Matthew into subject headings... is he, or anyone else, prepared to do that work for every book in the Bible?? The whole thing just does not belong here, and would be a FANTASTIC addition to Wikibooks. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 17:00 (UTC)
This is a tough call. Certainly Wikibooks would do well to have an annotation project, especially since their current "The New Testament" is up for speedy deletion. However, I'm not sure that I see how or why that would preclude WP having an entry for the verses which have been influential (just to pick a random example, let's say Matthew 3:1, introduces John the Baptist, and has some interestingly controvercial wording). WP might xfer to the Wikibooks articles as authoritative (if they were), but ultimately, I think the major verses need to have encyclopedic coverage. -Harmil 9 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't have both projects. The Gospel of John: Chapter 1 is vastly different from a page like John 20. We also have an entire project dedicated to cataloging species. Does this mean we should begin mass deleting our biology articles? - SimonP July 9, 2005 17:57 (UTC)
Point taken. After the transwikifying, I would then not object to Wikipedia-appropriate articles -- concentrating on the historical significance of those relatively few notable verses, rather than reproducing the text and giving religious interpretations of every verse -- being re-created over here. (Agree with Geogre below that this would often take the form of reference in another article, rather than an article specifically devoted to the verse.) Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:06 (UTC)
SimonP, the major difference being that there is a huge body of factual information to be presented about biological entities. I don't believe explaining or commenting or annotating Bible versus has the same weight as factual information, and I don't believe the verses themselves are factual in the same sense. You are comparing actual apples to religious verses about oranges. DavidH 01:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that this is a VfD. Those voting merge are not automatically agreeing to the proposal above, but simply agreeing that the articles should be merged. Those voting merge per above would be those who agree to the above merge. Those voting only merge are not, they simply agree that the articles should not be completely seperate. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
  • As it stands, there are too many articles on which to vote. It's not reasonable to expect people to read dozens and dozens of articles, even short ones, for a single VfD. If you want to create a consensus for individual articles, create a policy consensus discussion. Something like Wikipedia:Individual Bible verses would cover the scope, and we wouldn't have to go through this discussion on the VfD page every week. NatusRoma 9 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  • Comment: Any verse that has an exceptional doctrinal significance (e.g. the verse that is the rationale for the concept of Purgatory) could have an article, but it is more natural for the article on the doctrine to refer to the verse and to reiterate it. Thus, there is no real need to have articles on individual verses with all the roles played by those verses. We have the whole KJV at Wikisource, so deletion policy would direct us to just flat out delete the lot of them. Merging them is much better. Geogre 20:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. John 11:35. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stated in the intro that Jesus wept was not being threatened whatsoever by this VfD ~~~~ 11:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second the objections of others. Some articles herein were nominated on VfD just days ago. VfD does not seem the appropriate forum to resolve a policy issue of this significance. It is unclear what those voting simply "Merge" want exactly (given ~~~~'s boldface instruction) and no single admin should (or probably would want) to resolve this complex issue. For all these reasons, I think this vote is out of order. Of course, I also believe a no consensus result is all but inevitable. Xoloz 08:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Uncle G's merge plan. However, it may be worthwhile to open up a discussion and add it to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus, that's what it's there for. Radiant_>|< 09:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's the best option I've heard yet. There's no way this VfD can hope to accomplish what it wants to, and looking through all these listed articles and proposals just makes my head swim. I feel sorry for whatever poor admin has to close this monster. --Dmcdevit 09:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment and alternate proposal Here's an alternate proposal. It's more work, but a) I'm willing to help and b) it would eliminate complaints over major VfDs like this
    • Categorize all verse pages into:
      • Notable verses that have encyclopedic information in their articles (define criteria up-front)
      • Non-notable verses that simply describe the language of the verse
    • Create category pages (as suggested by this proposal) for major events and storylines, referencing the notable verse articles where appropriate, but otherwise providing simple capsule synopses of the previous content.
    • Find all pages that reference non-notable verses and, where appropriate, move the reference to the category pages.
    • For all non-notable articles with no remaining references, put up individual VfDs, referencing the project article, which should describe the whole process, and the criteria for non-notable biblical verses.
      • The above VfDs may be too numerous. An alternate way to do this would be to group them into related verses and VfD 10 or so at a time.
The end result would be roughly the same, but would leave notable articles like Matthew 3:1 intact. My first-pass approximation of criteria for notability would be: a) there is substantial disagreement among scholars about the importance, wording or meaning of the particular verse b) the verse introduces an important person or place for the first time c) the verse involves a direct quotation from a major person or entity d) there is any sect which bases its differentiation on the verse e) the verse's text is commonly (or was historically) used outside of biblical context (e.g. "eye for an eye", "turn the other cheek", etc.) -Harmil 17:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this vote. If you want to merge these articles, be bold and merge them. If you meet opposition on the pages themselves, you can sort it out there, not here where it is utterly inappropriate. You don't want them deleted so why are you having this process? Keep all the articles in question, obviously. Do not relist them. Just do the merges and deal with the fallout. Grace Note 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is the comments section not the votes section. ~~~~ 08:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a comment. I'm sure the closing admin can figure out what's happening. -- Grace Note


  • SimonP's behaviour is to instantly revert anything which reduces the content in his articles. Therefore merging the articles and dealing with the fallout without any consensus that the articles should not exist seperately is unfortunately not an option. ~~~~ 08:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Should not have to discuss the merge on each individual verse article's talk page, that's part of the problem. It's not that the verses aren't noteworthy, but that in most cases they are better dealt with in groups of verses rather individually. Notice the huge amount of duplication among the John 20: verse articles for instance, because they're discussing the same passage. I do think that Ungle G's merge plan should be tweaked slightly; for instance, Temptation of Jesus could refer to the Matthew 4 temptation in the wilderness, or to the much later temptation of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was tempted not to accept crucifixion. Wesley 16:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that is a vote, could you possibly move it to the votes section to make it clear to the closing admin? ~~~~ 19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think Uncle G's choices are due to guesswork as to what the titles of articles at List of Bible stories refer to. They look like they probably need tweaking a bit. ~~~~ 19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably what Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible is for. I have mentioned this project at least 4 times in the last month when people raise the question of discussing a unified policy. It is informative that the WikiProject is still static, and no-one has joined it to discuss unified policy. Since this is the case, I am forced to question the motives of those suggesting this must be discussed elsewhere first. ~~~~ 22:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then lead us in posting there! I agree that that is a much more appropriate venue for this discussion, but I only see one edit that you've made to the talk page. Since you have started this discussion, please start it again in a more proper venue. Moreover, instead of impugning the motives of others, please assume good faith. I, for one, haven't seen everything you've written, or followed every link you've bracketed, so I've missed most, if not all, of the four other times you've mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. Now that I know that it exists, I await a revival of this discussion at that more fitting venue. NatusRoma 05:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't joined the WikiProject, and nor has anyone else. It needs members to have discussion. The members listed have been there for ages and seem to have faded.~~~~ 22:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that neither one of us has joined the WikiProject at this point. You have nominated all of these articles for Deletion or Merging on VfD. Please take the first step on WikiProject:Bible. NatusRoma 00:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already have - I added the related note on the WikiProject talk page. ~~~~ 19:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I seek a discussion, not a poll. I seek a consensus, not a majority. NatusRoma 01:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the survey regards the inclusion of source text in Bible chapters, and has nothing to do with the nature or the existence of articles on individual Bible verses. NatusRoma 21:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the English wikipedia that others do not suffer is that there is a large systemic bias favouring the views of fundamentalist Christianity. This is merely because a large population of the English speaking world, and particularly of en-wikipedia is from the US, a very large % of which (compared to the remainder of the world) is composed of fundamentalist Christians. Since the other Wikipedias are mainly composed of people who do not edit the en-wikipedia, it is difficult to balance this systemic problem. The only real solution is to take questions like this to all wikipedias at once, and consider only the total vote over all of them (admittedly this has problems with duplicate accounts), however, there is not yet such a procedure for issues stemming from systemic bias predominantly affecting only one wikipedia. ~~~~ 22:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • nod* So it's probable that the English wiki is going to have a full copy of the Bible on it, but the book of Mormon, the Koran, the Talmud, et multiple cetera, will be 'not notable enough' for Wikipedia.  :/ Joy. Almafeta 11:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its a shame we can't split the english wikipedia into US and non-US versions (which would also be pointless - controversial articles would be edited by parties from both versions, since both can read and write english). Maybe this will cease being an issue when Spanish becomes the US national language. ~~~~ 19:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is truth in what you say. Not that all supporters of "keep" on this VFD are American or evangelical or even Christian. But we are at a time, especially here in America, when a loud minority feel compelled to insert the Bible, prayer, and religious symbolism into absolutely everything. We can't have science without the Bible, we can't have politics without prayer, we can't have courthouses and public squares without the Ten Commandments. It's obvious that these articles are questionably encyclopedic and could be perfectly handled in Wikibooks or the previously mentioned annotation project, but some people won't rest until Wikipedia is thoroughly innoculated with every word of the Bible. Their Bible, that is. I'd like to see them fight as hard for all the holy books of every other important world religion, but I won't hold my breath. DavidH 02:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like for all its purported "freedom of religion", the USA has become the most fundamentally Christian country in the western world. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DavidH would you care to provide any evidence for these accusations of bias? Kappa 11:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, the minority that's creating problems here is not the one that attempts to put the Bible and religion into absolutely everything it possibly can. It's the one that attempts to eliminate the Bible and religion from everything it possibly can.
unsigned comment
Note that I am suggesting to merge the articles. This is quite different from eliminating them. Please read carefully rather than jump to conclusions that are easy for you. ~~~~ 17:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I wanted to see Christian people saying "they can't take our faith away" and otherwise acting like martyrs, I'd read the letters column of our local freebie newspaper. — JIP | Talk 13:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding another point addressed above, there's a misleading idea being presented here that educated Americans have some fundamental bias in judgment that means the population of the enwiki somehow cannot be trusted to determine rationally what is encyclopedic. This is, naturally, not the case, and does not seem to me the sort of "systemic bias" we should be addressing. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:44, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
  • -Ril-, you haven't made a credible case for Christian fundamentalism in any way influencing the keep voters, and you misrepresent not only the voters who disagree with you but the whole issue by implying that fundamentalists would even like to keep these articles, which are based on works by scholars representing a historical-critical and philological interpretation. In fact, the only person in any of these votes clearly representing something reminiscent of Christian fundamentalism, User:Wesley, voted "delete", claiming that these articles inevitably would be dominated by "atheist 'academics'".[38] --Uppland 20:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote "something reminiscent of Christian fundamentalism", and I'm sure you realize that it doesn't make any difference exactly which church somebody belongs to, as the significance lies in the opposition between a historical-critical analysis of the biblical texts and one primarily serving to uphold the dogma of the church in question or of Christianity in general. The articles we are discussing here are clearly in the former camp. Don't you agree? --Uppland 22:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wesley's edits don't really suggest a fundamentalist attitude either.
  • The articles should be historical-critical but they aren't.
  • Having the articles individually serves the purpose of Bible study, concordence, and commentary, but does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. ~~~~ 08:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reason for putting "systemic bias" in scare quotes is that I don't think any systemic bias exists that is relevant to this vote.
  • Systemic bias probably accounts for the lack of comparable articles on the Koran or other similar books. Commentaries on the Koran are less likely to be understood or read by English speakers, because they are not in the language and because fewer English speakers are Muslim. This is what I would describe as systemic bias, stemming from exogenous factors like the allocation of research by languages, etc. For the enwiki, creating articles on the Koran is simply harder. The Wikiproject, by advertising and finding qualified people, can help remedy this problem.
  • On the other hand, here we are trying to determine whether these articles are encyclopedic (or propertly organized). You are claiming that because many of us are Christians, we somehow cannot do this well. But there's no clear reason why this would be the case. Christians, like anyone else, are fully capable of rationally assessing an article and determining if it should be kept or deleted or merged.
  • Not when it comes to their own holy book. Likewise for Muslims and the Quran. But for other things, I agree. If we were discussing, for example, if individual flavours of cat food merit their own articles, it doesn't matter a toss if the voters were Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Cthulhu worshippers. — JIP | Talk 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your viewpoint is that for both sides, it destroys the notion that we are having an intellectual discourse. Instead, we are all consciously or unconsciously voting based on our religious beliefs. On the contrary, I believe that the vast majority of the voters here are making votes based on a rational assessment of the issues, perhaps informed by different notions of what is encyclopedic and so on. I think an individual can come to a rational conclusion regardless of his race or religion; I think a group can come to a rational conclusion regardless of its demographics. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:21, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
  • Who wants to make an article on every little section of the Mahabharata next? :) --Dmcdevit·t 08:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many of the articles noted above are impressively well-referenced and encyclopedic. The Bible has been so over-analyzed over the centuries that a full-length article could almost certainly be written on every verse. That applies to a number of other canonical texts in the world as well-- and if someone creates a bunch of quality articles on individual verses in the Quran or the Pali Canon, I'll gladly vote to keep them as well.
  • Keep While the import of specific articles on specific verses may be called into question, this blanket delete is overzealous. Amicuspublilius 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. it's a blanket merge rather than a blanket delete.~~~~ 07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH IS THIS VfD STILL OPEN ELEVEN DAYS AFTER IT WAS OPENED?!?!
Tomer TALK 03:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
While the result is fairly clear, we need to wait until a user who has time to remove over a hundred VfD headers comes along. - SimonP 04:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
It still ought to be possible to closed the VfD, and even to announce the result, before dealing with the articles themselves.NatusRoma 05:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While the result is fairly clear, the result that is clear is that there is no consensus. I have added up the votes, and the amount of votes to keep the articles is slightly less than those to do something else with them. The difference is negligable, however, thus requiring the VFD to remain open to gain consensus. A result of no-consensus, would just cause the VFD to be re-opened immediately after closing, to determine consensus. It will be re-listed on VFD if it fails to achieve consensus in the next 4 days (as it will drop off the VFD backlog at that point). N.b. consensus is generally regarded as 2/3 majority, or at least a noticable (as opposed to by 1/2 votes out of 60) majority. ~~~~ 06:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with you. The vote is CLEARLY opposed to deletion, therefore the VfD should be closed. There is a great deal of support for transwikiing to a currently non-existent project, but that does not minimize the fact that there is a grand total of FOUR patently "delete" votes. I move that the nominator be assigned with the task of removing the VfD notifications, and that interested parties be invited to constructively commence formation of the widely supported biblewiki project. My guess is that most of those who voted in favor of transwikiing thereto lack the technical expertise to actually accomplish such a transwikiing (myself included), but that once the project were up and running, that the superfluous material would happily disappear from the WP project to its more appropriate home. Meanwhile, stalling in order to try to gain more and more votes is patently ridiculous. How long do y'all plan to leave this open? It's already going on 2 weeks. A month? 2 months? 3? 4? 18???! Close this already, and let's move on to constructively address the clear consensi: (a) do not delete and (b) start biblewiki (or whatever). Tomer TALK 07:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed, but this VFD was primarily about merging the articles rather than deleting them. The vote is required to determine whether consensus is to keep the articles as individuals or to merge them together or move them somewhere else. What is being VFD'd is their individuality. I.e. I put their individuality up for deletion. Merge, transwiki, and delete votes are all agreeing that they should not be individual. There needs to be consensus as to whether they should exist seperately in wikipedia (rather than eslewhere - e.g. WikiBooks) or not. ~~~~ 07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. The technical expertise required to transwiki is to add a {{move to WikiBooks}} tag to the article. Someone who is able to transwiki it will them perform the transwiki after a week or so. ~~~~ 07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah...I noticed that it's more about merging that deleting...I still think the whole kit 'n caboodle should be transwikied—but it would be inappropriate to send it to wikibooks or wikisource. If someone knows how to make wikibible, I'll be more than happy to help remove the VfD tags on the articles. That said, I still think it's ridiculous that the VfD is still open. Tomer TALK 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Wikibible would be a book amongst Wikibooks. There is already a project there. I think it's called Wikibooks:New Testament ~~~~ 17:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vote summary so-far

[edit]

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

Discounted
  • Keep x 1
  • merge x 1
Vote breakdown
  • Abstain x 2
  • Keep x 31
  • Merge x 21
  • Transwiki x 3
  • Merge and transwiki x 1
  • Merge or Transwiki x 2
  • Merge, Transwiki, or Delete x 1
  • Transwiki or Delete x 1
  • Transwiki or Keep x 1
  • Merge or keep x 2
  • Delete x 5
  • Keep (conditional) x 1
I.e.
  • Abstain x 2
  • Keep as individual articles x 32
  • Don't have as individual articles x 34
  • Either x 3
Overlapping Totals
  • Abstain x 2
  • Keep x 34
  • Merge x 27
  • Transwiki x 10
  • Delete x 7
  • Keep (conditional) x 1
I.e.
  • Abstain x 2
  • Keep as individual articles x 35
  • Don't have as individual articles x 44
n.b. this second grouping includes overlaps (e.g. "merge OR transwiki" = "merge" x 1 + "transwiki" x 1), so some votes counted twice

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

    • What was done with those "Merge or Keep" votes now? And the "Transwiki or Keep"? I must question the value of this "analysis." Xoloz 02:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This second count - "overlapping totals" - includes each part of such votes, i.e. they overlap. A "transwiki or keep" vote is here converted to a "transwiki" vote and a "keep" vote, etc. Note that, as mentioned, some people's votes are thus counted in two locations.
      • The value of this is simply to see which of those alternative votes is the favoured outcome. I.e. in the event of the merge/transwiki/keep/delete votes not having a clear consensus, which is favoured by these more ambiguous votes. From the above, it is clear that, after keep, it is merge, and the second favourite is transwiki. ~~~~ 08:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comments continued...

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Benyamin jaffery

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Chinless Wonder

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Ari Katsoulas

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Types of Zombies

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Frictional Affects of Hurricanes

[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

WebMotiva

[edit]

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

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

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

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

José de Arimathéia Otto

[edit]

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

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

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

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

This call was Suspiciously made

[edit]

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

Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof.

That comprehensive post also includes a relevant subsection titled,

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

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

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

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

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


Anti-polygamy

[edit]

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

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

  • Delete; I would have said merge with polygamy, except that the article really says nothing at all so there wouldn't be any point. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:02 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Dcarrano. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. --Scimitar 9 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well said, Dcarrano. --Idont Havaname 20:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a redirect to polygamy probably wouldn't hurt --Tothebarricades 23:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - (im copying Idont Havaname in congratulating Dcarrano on his well-putness) -mysekurity 05:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything appropriate to polygamy (if not redundant) and redirect. Essentially pro-monogamists would be anti-polygamy but I do not think there is a difference, like the apparent difference between non-monogamous and anti-monogamous (but that's another can of worms I am not qualified to handle) - Skysmith 12:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. "Anti-polygamy" doesn't add anything to "anti-" and "polygamy", except an article restricted to one side of a debate. Peter Grey 14:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept. According to Wikipedia, this article does not even qualify for being up for a Deletion vote. If one does not know the issue, they are (as the above Wikipedia link calls most of the voters here) voting on something which, "involves a topic of which {they} are ignorant". As explained in the segment below, the anti-polygamy article is open to both sides of the debate for true NPOV. It frees up the neutral anthropological polygamy article from the repeatad anti-polygamy agenda and POV. Actually, it is the vast amounts of one-sided POV anti-polygamy arguments that get added to the polygamy article frequently which do not actually inform the user about polygamy, they are the edits which do not actually apply to the polygamy page, yet would more appropriately apply in a two-sided agenda/debate anti-polygamy article. Instead of this profoundly hasty call for voting for deletion from a visibly hostile POV, voters should be, as Wikipedia explains, "If you can improve the article instead, do so." Voters here have not even attempted that Wikipedia-directed option based on their own biased POV. There is no fair basis for calling or voting for this page to be deleted. Doing so is only biased POV. This anti-polygamy article should be left alone, and any informed Wikipedians should follow Wikipedia's guidelines to simply build upon it instead of seeking to destroy it. Researcher 14:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest allowing another week for the vote. Today, I placed a comment about this VfD on the polygamy page. I don't expect many more votes, but there are likely to be a few. I don't expect a change in the result, either, but I do want to allow a fair vote. I don't want Researcher99 to feel any more oppressed than he already feels. Nereocystis 17:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To my great frustaration, Nereocystis is caught here lying yet again. What they have just said here is simply not true, and they know it. Nereocystis is totally out to oppress as shown in this post they made on 19:12, 18 July 2005 and I pointed out their extreme aggressiveness this very day in my subsequent post 19:42, 18 July 2005. Not only was Nereocystis caught lying in those other posts, but they are clearly lying here too about their supposed concern for the oppression they are doing against me and their supposed desire for anything "fair." It is my hope that people will not further assist Nereocystis's hostile anti-polygamy POV and agenda. The current dispute with that anti-polygamist should not be exploited to hastily delete the anti-polygamy article. That article was offered as an NPOV solution to end the abuse and solve that other dispute. (See the other section here about that.) So deleting the article interferes with a possible resolution of that dispute. If the anti-polygamy article does get deleted because of such false exploitation, there will be nothing "fair" about that whatsoever. Despite their little game of suggesting an "extention" of the vote another week, and the admission of expecting no more votes to change the current vote-tally to "Kept," the revealed lie in the linked-posts also reveals how aggressive they plan to be to exploit that deletion in furthering their abuse. So, Nereocystis knows there is nothing really "fair" about deleting this article at all and that they have no desire to stop oppressing me or stop preventing all my obviously-valid edits. To say otherwise is clearly just another lie. It is my hope that the abuse will come to an end and that valid posts can once again be made to the polygamy and anti-polygamy articles in Wikipedia. Researcher 20:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article was created out of spite and frustration (edit wars and reverts notwithstanding), and is contrary to the Wikipedia mission. StopTheFiling 20:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the polygamy article. I agree with Researcher99 that this topic should be covered, but we cannot have an "anti-x" article for every "x" article. Perhaps later if the anti-polygamy section were to grow significantly it would merit its own place on Wikipedia, but for now I think that this is practically a stub. Explodicle 01:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your input. The article is a brand-new work-in-progress. Only one day after the article was originally created, hostile anti-polygamist Nereocystis made a post on the anti-polygamy TALK page there hinting for someone to call for it to be deleted. This call for deletion was way too quickly and suspiciously made. Regarding size of the article, it could very easily and quickly be filled up to a large article. If anti-polygamists would spend their time building up the anti-article instead of craftily trying to hide their agenda by trying to destroy it, they could quickly help it reach that size. Pro-polygamy responses would then further add to its size. (Plus, the current polygamy article so already too large. When you try to edit that whole polygamy article, the red-font warning tells you it is alrady too large. So, the time really is now to make that separation to the anti-polygamy article. Researcher 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nereocystis himself called for the extension on the vote - do you think further extension would be a fair compromise? I would change my vote to "keep" if this were a bit more in-depth and fit in better alongside the main article, and from what you say, all that needs is time and effort. In the meantime, I don't think we have consensus to resolve the issue. Explodicle 04:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your input, Explodicle. Actually, Nereocystis is not being honest about that. It is one of their tactics, much like a politician smelling possible victory (such as with likeminded anti-polygamists voting their way), trying to come out in front of the final result and pretending to be gracious, when they certainly do not mean it. A couple months ago, I had had to "out" Nereocystis as the anti-polygamist they are. At that time, they were pretending to be "pro-polygamist" as they were committing sneaky vandalisms to actually destroy the polygamy article. They also frequently make obfuscatory claims that are obviously untrue, as seen here where they claimed that a clearly obvious NPOV statement is somehow POV. regarding enlargement, I would be glad to enlarge the anti-polygamy article. But Nereocystis aggressively removed the link to anti-polygamy from the polygamy article a day after its creation, so no one else knows it exists in order to build it further. When I tried to restore the link, the rv'ed it again. Lately, Nereocystis has been plotting daily with new ways to destroy the polygamy article, so much so and are not giving me a chance to even catch my breath. Lastly, there are some things on the currently too-large polygamy atricle that could be moved to the anti-polygamy article. But considering that Nereocystis rv's every edit I make, no matter what, I can only expect to see my edits to build up the anti-polygamy article rv'ed too. As shown at the top of this page here, the very call for this "Vote for Deletion" is, itself, highly suspect. That suspect person who created this call for VfD has not posted anything in Wikipedia since last year. All of a sudden they make this call for VfD and only this call? Very suspect. So, with all that, I do not really believe that any extension is all that much of a fair compromise. This suspect call is just another abuse being heaped toward me in a not-yet-resolved problem with Nereocystis. (I was actually trying to help resolve the problem by creating the anti-polygamy article in thefirst place.) I would certainly be glad to enlarge the article over time, with help from others who can find the article. But that will take time. I need Nereocystis and their hostile anti-polygamy POV to be prevented from destroying every work I do and every single edit I make. They now aggressively act as if they "own" the polygamy article and have created numerous problems indeed. That last issue is really the heart of the problem here. I am hoping to have it resolved so normal editing can resume. I also hope my response here has been helpful for you. Thanks again. Researcher 01:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever personal grudge you two may have against one another is none of my concern. I'll keep an eye on THIS article and THIS article's history, and vote solely based on what I see there. Explodicle 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Why not just Build the Article?

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Gabe Benson

[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete.

Daves Railway Photos

[edit]

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

  • Delete - Not notable. Bollar July 9, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as solely containing internet link. David | Talk 9 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)


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

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

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

Adam Christopher Strange

[edit]
  • Keep - I looked at the links from this page and believe they offer a doorway to enrichment for anyone. Food for thought: "encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge. The first such use in English is recorded in 1644."(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition--207.105.138.131 22:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You guys are so harsh. How does a living artist ever get over the 'nn' if nobody sees his/her work? If you really think my work is "valueless" please delete immediately. --A.Strange Singularity 20:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nothing personal, but Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote oneself. Become notable, then someone will write an article about you. Artists do have ways to promote themselves other than here, surely. --Etacar11 17:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable artist/filmmaker vanity. Possible advert. 3 Google hits, only one that isn't from his webiste. Scimitar 9 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
  • Delete - Definitely nn/vanity, probably advertising. --TheMidnighters 9 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
  • Delete nnanity. Only gets 3 Google hits, and the top one is his own site. -Splash 01:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. Was also vane enough to add self-promotion to Mona Lisa yesterday [39]. -- Solipsist 18:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Pharma Frontiers

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Magneta Lane

[edit]

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

  • No, they wouldn't. Delete as vanity. Ditto the article at Lexi Valentine. - Lucky 6.9 9 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
  • According to the article they have a couple of published singles and are getting air time. That makes them sufficiently notable. They also seem to have oodles of Google hits. Keep.-gadfium 20:28, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legitate band. They have an international following (a look at thier my space page shows that they have fans ALL over the world, they have several singles out, they have music videos on MTV, VH1 and MuchMusic that are in medium rotation, and their music can be purchased on just about any online music store including itunes, napster, MSN music, Yahoo Music, Puretracks, RealRhapsody, Mp3.com, etc. Right now they are currently touring in Japan. Seems worthy to me. :)
  • Strong Keep - Meets criteria for WP:MUSIC, 18,000 Google hits, has extensive Allmusic page despite being new. I realize there are tons of vanity band pages created per day but they each merit at least a google or allmusic search before vfd. --TheMidnighters 21:09, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,this seems like a no-brainer, but I'm just adding my voice.--Benfergy 04:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Brian's derivate

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

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

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

Aida Yua

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

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

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

Crimson Suffering

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Udo Prambs

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Liberta Togo

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Doc Holliday Troll

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Daniel Müller-Schott

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

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

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

Etkin arun

[edit]

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

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Transwiki to wikicities and redirect. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Avatar World

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Schweinhund

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Sassenach

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Gädda

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Famh

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Hexa Strike

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Nintendo On

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Zebedee LPMud

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Amber palekar

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fuzzles the Snugly Little Puppy and Grumpy the Cat

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Even money

[edit]

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

  • It is defensible in that it has a meaning beyond its original one. It is an idiom, or a figure of speech, as well as a gambling term. Also, it would be good to have a list of gambling terms of a glossary associated with that article, as many of them are not in most standard dictionaries. (Such as list would be as least as perteinent as "List of professional wrestling terms".) A good projectro someone IMO.207.69.51.151 23:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)User:Rlquall\Rlquall
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Khaki-Man

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Carried by the Wind

[edit]

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

  • Delete, fails all webcomics guidelines. Dcarrano 05:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets all webcomics guidelines. Nifboy 23:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I BEG your pardon! You are the guys who force me to write it: if they hadn't put the article up for deletion, I wouldn't have had to write the stuff below. YOU CAN'T DELETE AN ARTICLE BECAUSE YOU HATE THE AUTHOR. JUST THE FACT THAT YOU PLACED THAT PARTICULAR COMMENT MAKES YOUR OPINION BIASED AND MEANS YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISCUS THE ISSUE FURTHER. And if I do say so, the above reason is the biggest BS I've seen in my life. Ian Rubin 02:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've seen a dozen webcomics, many of which I would have considered more notable than this, go up for VfD in the last week, all of which were unanimously deleted. And two, I don't particularly like how you reply to every comment on this VfD, and at least I'm being honest about it (unlike the multitude of trolls who would vote Strong Delete on a website they dislike without comment). (I know, I know, I shouldn't feed/bait the trolls, but it's just so fun!) Nifboy 02:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right, so I'll stop replying to everything here. Just watch what you say: the only reason I reply to everything is that I want this article to stay, and I'm trying to tell people who don't like that why. Ian Rubin 02:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So? How many articles have you written?! I've encouraged people to edit this MANY times, and anyone who feels it should be changed can do so by editing it. Why didn't either of you do so? The comic has a large following, and even though on hiatus, still attracts people. Now, would you delete the Sabrina Online article if it didn't have enough Google hits?! How many hits would I get if I typed in "Gwalla"? Ian Rubin 11:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You can check my contributions list if you want to know what I've done. Incidentaly, Googling "gwalla" gets about 265 hits, but it hardly matters because there is no wikipedia article about me, and I have never claimed to merit one. My nomination has nothing to do with how well the article is written, but whether the subject merits an article. The paucity of google hits (particularly for something that is entirely Internet-based) and complete lack of Alexa data suggests that any following it has is not large. — Gwalla | Talk 01:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Well, more people will know about it and create a larger following if they know about it. And this is definitly the place for them to find out about it. Have you even read it Gwalla? I wouldn't have created an article on it if I didn't feel it deserved an article. I even put this up to a vote: I only went with what the people wanted. If they didn't want an article on this site, I wouldn't have taken the time and effort to make the article. I have re-editted the article so that more information is available. Ian Rubin 02:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Suggestion to Mr. Rubin: Try to keep replies to comments directly under the message they are intended to reply to, not with votes in between. That having been said, I have never even heard of the comic in question until I saw it on VfD. That having been said, if comics were excluded just because they were defunct, we should nail Absurd Notions, Avalon ?, and several others. Nifboy 03:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: "Well, more people will know about it and create a larger following if they know about it. And this is definitly the place for them to find out about it." may actually argue against inclusion, as Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion. — Gwalla | Talk 06:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I'm not trying to advertise Brent Bowser's work. (He can do that on his own if he'd like.) Carried by the Wind has as much a right to be here as any other web comic. You wouldn't delete Tales of the Questor, would you? Have you even read Carried by the Wind? It meets a majority of the requirements for web comics. REPEAT: I AM NOT TRYING TO ADVERTISE THE COMIC!!!! I am only giving people the oppourtunity to find out about it. Every article on this site attempts to acheive this purpose. If they have never read the web comic, and want to know what it's about, they can find out. I wouldn't recommend any of your articles for deletion because of low search engine hits, and neither should you. Ian Rubin
          • Comment I'm going to have to play Devil's Advocate here and point out that "giving people the opportunity to find out about" something is advertising. Having said that, one of my own webcomic articles (By The Saints) has also been nominated for deletion...by the same User, I might add...leading me to suggest that the deletion policy for webcomics may be overzealous. Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently familiar with CbtW to vote for inclusion on merit, so I must Abstain. Lee M 19:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Change to Weak Keep, having read the Archive. Sketchy artwork and incomplete storyline, also confusing use of flashbacks. OTOH, interesting concept, story and characterization. Now if only he'd finish it... Lee M 15:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Okay, I could have phrased that better. A LOT better. You all know what I'm trying to say. Say for example, you see a referance to CbtW somewhere and you don't know what it is. Where do you go? Wikipedia. This site has articles so that people can find information on a subject. Don't you think that CbtW is a subject? Ian Rubin 21:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment I think the point here is that webcomics are considered for deletion on the grounds of obscurity. There must be thousands of articles on obscure towns, movies, songs, politicians, buildings, TV shows, books, mathematical formulae and subatomic particles. None of those articles ever seem to get deleted on the grounds that nobody's ever heard of them, and yet that is precisely the policy that is being followed in the case of webcomics. I definitely think the Alexa rule on webcomics should be rethought. Lee M 01:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Songs (as well as albums and bands) have to pass WP:MUSIC first, which is about one order of magnitude more stringent than most webcomic inclusion proposals. While I do agree that the Alexa test should definitely not be the be-all and end-all concerning webcomics, there are few ways to determine the notability of a webcomic (the other is longevity, which is what the second proposal covers). Nifboy 02:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has well over a hundred comics, has been going for several years, and although its been on hiatus for a few months now (sigh), it hasn't actually died yet. --Thaeus (unregistered)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

By The Saints

[edit]

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

  • Delete agree with the above, non-notable. The actual comic seems to have a bit of a cult following (??) Article appears to be a bit of self-aggrandizement. Actual art of the comic is not bad however. ColoradoZ 22:07, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails all webcomics guidelines. Dcarrano 05:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Permit me to reiterate my justifications for inclusion as stated on the article's Talk page:
  1. High quality artwork, backed up by detailed historical research.
  2. Good script, plotting and characterisation. The author also has a good ear for dialects.
  3. Labour of love. This comic is obviously its creator's pet project, therefore he's certain to stick it out to the end no matter what. Lee M 17:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable webcomic. JamesBurns 07:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I began this article I was well aware of the fact that this particular title was borderline for inclusion. OTOH I was also mindful of the following: "These guidelines are primaily designed to prevent the multitude of new or unencyclopedic web comics from using Wikipedia as free promotion.". Well, the reason I wrote the article was that I did not consider By The Saints to be just one of the multitude. I was impressed with the quality of its art and storytelling, and in my considered opinion the author had and has a genuine commitment to telling this story. In other words, this is not some johnny-come-lately strip that's going to disappear overnight. Under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines#Alternate proposal BTS is just short of the 33-week rule - the 33rd weekly page not including fillers is scheduled for July 25, meaning that it's just a fortnight short. If we assume that the 100-strip rule applies to single strips, then 33 full pages should be the equivalent. Finally, despite the above suggestion of self-aggrandizement, I am certainly not the webcartoonist. I'm going to stick my neck out here and predict that BTS is going to grow in size and increase its readership and that five years from now it will easily pass every guideline for inclusion. If the article is deleted now then I would suggest that the deletion policy is in serious need of revision.Lee M 10:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I interpret "100 strips" as "100 individual installments". Trying to determine how many strips a page is equivalent to in terms of effort seems highly subjective. I should also point out that the "alternative guidelines" are controversial, as they were added with little discussion beforehand; there is currently discussion on that talkpage as to whether they should be kept, amended, or thrown out entirely. Furthermore, we're not in the business of predicting future notability here: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deletion is not permanent: if the comic does become notable later, a new article may be written about it. — Gwalla | Talk 18:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to what I consider outstanding artwork, this webcomic is unique for its attention to historical detail. The artist has created a detailed world and crafted an interesting storyline. The interest may be limited to period enthusiasts but there are certainly enough of them out there to merit inclusion of this webcomic in Wikipedia.ccdesan 08:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC) actually added by 24.10.221.216 (talk · contribs)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Synoptic climatology

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph E. Duncan III

[edit]

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

  • Author's Comment: I wrote the article of course yet I felt that it was important to provide examples/studies or biographies of certain, "model" cases for the purpose of education and learning to identify sex offender profiles. Duncan is rapidly becomming a sex offender icon. His blog has opened a new dimension to understanding the mind of a repeat, criminal sex offender. Please consider leaving this page intact, or improving it. jaimenote
    • At best, this belongs at Wikinews. Aside from the blog aspect of this story, this guy is really just a run-of-the-mill sex offender, AFAICT. (It sucks that sex offenders are common enough for there to be "run-of-the-mill" ones, but I digress.) If and when this guy's case and his blog have a serious impact on the study of sex offenders, he might deserve an article in an encyclopedia, but right now, he's not particularly notable, and this content is much more appropriate for a news site. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 07:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Firstly clearly needs cleanup to comply with WP:MOS. Secondly seems verifiable, so no legal problems. Thirdly, the author appears to be the same author of the site at http://www.jaimesite.homestead.com/josepheduncaniii.html which must be frowned upon. The only what links there is a see also in sexual abuse (not v good), but week keap on the basis of verifiability, but remember NPOV, and please cleanup. Dunc|☺ 23:54, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vote for now. If his blog is notable to criminologists, 1) please prove that to be true as we have no proof of it currently, and 2) the article then should be primarily about the blog, rather than what it is now. Dcarrano 05:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was a major news story, it was on every major network and wire! I think being at the center of a several-weeks-long national news story is good enough evidence of noteworthiness. I cannot imagine why people think this should be deleted. Cleaned up, certainly, but not deleted. --168.150.251.36 06:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's Comment: I went back and worked to clean up the article, corrections were made in the sequence of events. Spelling errors and grammatical issues were cleaned up. I added more recent information as knowledge of the case has developed. I placed a greater emphasis on the blog, "The Fifth Nail" as this is what sets this case apart from the, "run-of-the-mill" status of other similar articles. I next removed a link to my own website that lists proposed litigation aimed at controlling or governing sex offenders before the US Congress. Please let me know if I can do more to improve this article. I really would like to see it remain as there are people interested in learning more about sex offenders and studying this landmark case that includes evidence in the form of online websites maintained by the accused. Thank you for all the suggestions. jaimenote
  • Author's Comment: Returned again to adjust paragraph and sentence structure, changed information likely to be considered dated in the near future and added a step by step description of the cycle of sexual assualt. Please review and all constructive comments are welcome! jaimenote
  • Keep. But an extensive cleanup that infuses more NPOV and relayouts the article is needed. All psychopaths/criminals showing a notable particularirty have to be kept in Wikipedia. In this case, I think that the blog is 'interesting' enough for keeping it. Why delete this one, but keep Graham Capill? I say keep both. --133.68.21.115 07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Pletal

[edit]

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

  • Comment: Pletal is a brand name for Cilostazol, which gets another 705 google hits using your criteria. I think the product itself should be in Wikipedia. I do have serious concerns about the copyright status of the text in the current article, but I can not find anything on the Internet to prove it is copyright text. It does look like a cut/paste job though. I may vote later on this VfD. For now, I'll continue looking regarding the copyright status and vote abstain. --Durin 22:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on copyvio possibility; I don't think it is. SOME of the text appears to be a direct cut/paste from this FDA resource [42], which means the text is in the public domain. --Durin 22:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; With the above in mind, and agreeing with TheCoffee below (except on copyvio status), I change my vote from abstain to keep. --Durin 22:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

CajunBot

[edit]

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

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

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

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

List of Jewish prayers and blessings

[edit]

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

  • Transwikify as sugguested by nominator -mysekurity 05:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks like a fine collection and wikipedia would likely be the place that the less wiki-knowledgable would expect to find it. Then again, I'm among those and am perhaps mistaken regarding its proper placement... - mnuez Edit by 208.54.14.65
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. Dcarrano 23:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. JamesBurns 07:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fabio (Recife/Brazil): I vote to keep. Any knowledge, either religious or not, any writen article shall, in my point of view, be kept open source as far as possible. Knowledge is power, and more knowledge in open source will make sure everybody has the same luck as I had as a child: to grow up with different backgrounds and to learn to respect all of them not as inferior to mine but just different views of the samething, our creator.
  • Keep, of course, and edit to make it more of an an annotated list (which it is mostly already) and not a source text. Neutralitytalk 05:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: possibly some of the material should be moved to Wikisource, but clearly a substantial article would remain even after that was moved. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Neutrality's argument. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

The Nights Dawn Trilogy

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Cannabanadian

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Bertha Fox

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Quacked

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Irusha

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Kjorteo

[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • I listed one of additional pages on Vfd. Please, read Wikipedia guidelines, in particular, Wikipedia:Auto-biography before making more contributions. Andris 17:19, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Texture, I think it's premature to remove the links to this page. If this page gets deleted, then you remove the links, not before. I'm going to go ahead and place the links back up. 128.220.29.140 17:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have gone ahead and de-vanitized it further. I think it looks pretty good now. I'd be curious to hear if other people still think it's a vanity article. If so, that's fine, but I have done all I can with the page. The next step is up to the voters. Please vote honestly and not as a knee-jerk reaction to all of the silliness and antics below. Thanks. 128.220.29.140 19:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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


Vote complete - article deleted

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

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

Tiera Ward Aka T-BaBy

[edit]

Delete. Vanity/non-notable unsigned artist. 68.166.32.19

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