Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 21 May 23 >

May 22

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Thomas. Has already been done, so I'm just closing here. Sjakkalle 11:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thom

[edit]

It is a generic name, 501 articles show up on a search with about 20-30 having Thom in the title.

~~wsloand

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Bad Robot Production. It has already been done, so I'm just closing here. Sjakkalle 11:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Robot

[edit]

Advert page. Alexa ranking of 936300 suggests non-notability. --EvilZak 00:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Clear Point Therapy

[edit]

Not sure what to make of this. Looks like email spam. ā†’VikĀ Reykja 00:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Nielsen

[edit]

Unsuccessful canidate for North Carolina Senate(District 11). No other indication of notability. --Allen3Ā talk 01:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:40, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Karina Hyett

[edit]

Article does not recite any reason why this individual is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia; looks like pure vanity/advertising. Kelly Martin 01:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:40, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

West-Side Chopstix

[edit]

Vanity; non-notable band. Delete. Emiao 00:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 07:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Principality of galore

[edit]

Looks like nonsense to me, but I think micronations are supposed to go through VfD. Delete.-gadfium 01:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unsuccesful proto-micro-nation. Kappa 02:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it, it is of proper revelence, this micronation is struggling and needs support.
  • Delete Unverifiable. --EvilZak 02:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable and advertising. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all micronations. RickK 05:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, mirconations cruft. Megan1967 05:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all micronations. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. AŠøDя01DTALK 05:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unverified, no evidence of notability. Delete. (And stop vandalizing the VfD page.) - Mike Rosoft 13:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. I too cannot find any evidence. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why do people keep forgetting that this is an encyclopedia. --IncMan 23:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I contacted the Principality and they replied rather quickly, they sent me sources and proof that they are recognised by the Port Phillip Council. I say keep it it is obviously important to them.--sillysodii ā€” (Unsigned comment by 60.230.109.53; user's 6th edit.)
  • I deleted various responses and personal attacks that User:60.230.109.53 ("sillysodii") made, which were interspersed with nearly everyone else's votes, sometimes showing up in the code for our signatures. If you want to rebut our arguments, do it succinctly with an edit that is clearly your own, and sign your comments with ~~~~, rather than forging a signature for a nonexistant user. (By the way, "email them and find out" is a laughable way to verify something. I could say I'm the Emperor of Mars; just email me and find out!) AŠøDя01DTALK 11:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • hello yes i could e-mail you but i'm not going to waste my time. If you Cant find information on the internet all i suggested was to e-mail the Principality and They will send information back! By the way android i could just say on the internet i was the emperor of mars makes no difference whether the source is off the internet or from an e-mail!!! 203.94.135.4 02:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have various tools for evaluating the veracity and notability of a website; not so for emails, which are easily forged. Also, I can't cite an email like I can a website or a reputable offline source. AŠøDя01DTALK 02:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I've emailed the Port Phillip City Council. They should know whether or not they've recognised this "principality". ā€” P Ingerson (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it does exist in a marginal manner, still not notable. Donovan Ravenhull 15:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, At least someone has shown an interest and hopefully this will finally prove that the Principality of Galore is REAL!!!

  • Delete even if the city council has in fact recognized this entity, an independant state must have international recognition, and no evidence of this is claimed. Even a peusdo-state should have some degree of notability, see Emperor Norton. DES 17:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all micronations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dear all, The Principality of Galore HAS been acknowledged by the Port Phillip Council, There for becoming a new city council, under Australian law a city council (an area/territory) has the right to secede as long as the citizens within that area vote unanimously. That has been done.
    • Asserting it doesn't make it true. Provide some verification. AŠøDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

OK i shall prove that Galore has seceded here it is

GALORE IS INDEPENDENT

thats declearation of independece for you

now you cant doubt it fools

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was nothing, but as user pages can be deleted by request, then I'll do it anyway. ā€”Xezbeth 17:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:Stancel, User talk:Stancel

[edit]

I'm requesting that my user page be deleted. Please delete. Also, is there any way I can delete my ACCOUNT itself? I'll be using a new account from now on. Stancel 02:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can user pages be moved? If not, you could probably speedy your user page (edited only by you, except for vandalism and vandalism reversion). You should be able to move your user talk page to a subpage of your new user talk. You should probably keep that around as an archive. androidā†”talk 02:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Stancel, since this is one of your own pages, you can ask for speedy deletion here. Much simpler than a vfd vote. If you want to you can simply move and redirect it. Moving the page in the same way as an article to the new name - that will make the old "Stancel" pages redirects. If you want to, you can then put the "Stancel" redirects up for speedy - which would effectively remove that account. Grutness...wha? 02:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't you want to keep your Stancel userpage, and just redirect it to the user page of your new name? Otherwise, all record of what you have done will be lost. Harro5 03:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

He's blanked his user and talk pages already. User:Luigi30 (Ī„ĻƒĪ·Ļ Ļ„Ī±Ī»Īŗ Ī›Ļ…Ī·Ī³Ī·Ī›) 15:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Shkolnick

[edit]

Vanity. Delete until she achieves epic glory Denniā˜Æ 02:12, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

  • Delete. Was a candidate for speedy deletion, deserves nothing less. Harro5 02:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, was not a candidate for speedy. Wish that were the case, and I'd have done it. Denniā˜Æ 15:40, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity! Amerika 03:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Kiddie penpal vanity. Geogre 13:20, 22 May 2005
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to give an auto biography about yourself! Its 110% vanity. Delete it, no one is going to read it.
  • Delete: My question: Why isn't it gone yet?

(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.
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 deleted as recreate by BrokenSegue. Master Thief GarrettTalk 11:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Food Mart

[edit]

This is a hoax article. It has been deleted before. This should be a straight up-and-down delete vote. Harro5 02:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

America's Army controversy

[edit]

1: Original research. 2: Would be difficult to make NPOV because the very existence of a controversy is a POV. jdb ā‹ (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Tir-fly

[edit]

Non-notable nonexistent band. No Google hits for the band or the lead singer. ā€”Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP

European English

[edit]

Note that the version initially considered for deletion has been completely replaced. A new rounding of voting on the replacement is now underway.

Version as of 22 May 2005

[edit]

Personal project of an SAP consultant named David Jacob, a project whose entire existence seems to be a wiki here and a web page here. It appears to fit "Problems that may require deletion" in a couple of ways:

66.167.253.48 05:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC) (Anonymous contributor of hundreds of new articles and edits since May 2003; see User contributions For 66.167.49.31 for my first day's contributions)[reply]

  • Delete Original research. Strong Keep after the changes made by User:Nobbie. BlankVerse āˆ… 05:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suspect it's a promotional article by the originator of the scheme. Beyond this and the web page of the project itself, I find no real discussion of this scheme elsewhere. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV original research, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 06:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No original research please. Harro5 06:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising/announcement and original research. I was almost interested in the title, though, as there is something unusual about the phonology of English in Europe (excluding the UK). The continental vowel schemes result in a broadened and deepened pronunciation that ought to be studied, as it appears that it is becoming standardized, but then that study needs to be summarized here and not conducted here. Geogre 13:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very odd 'OR'. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very obvious linguistic OR. / Peter Isotalo 19:39, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks to me like this is a legitimate project. I found a professor writing on the implications of European English for the EU and Europe in general[1], and a google search for "European English" and EU returns just over 2,000 results. It doesnt seem to be a personal project to me. (unsigned comment by User:WoodenTaco)
  • Delete I don't know how legitimate the project is (even if it is, it doesn't fulfill the criteria to be a wiki article), but the author is trying to use wikipedia to promote his research. Thats certainly not acceptable. Delete and Merge to Euroenglish --IncMan 18:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete original research, unfactual. -Pedro 13:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepĀ : European English DOES already exists de facto. In a meeting in Paris, with French, Spanish, German and Italian speakers speaking English they will use some words and expressions that are not the same as in similar meeting in London, or New York with real native english speakers. For native English speakers is it only bad English, but for these European peersons it is European English. I admit that the European English PROJECT is pretty new, and has only little support for now compared to esperanto, but this is not an original research, this is a project to improve this existing European English. Meanwhile I understand your critics, I should not talk mainly about my project. European English should be define in Wikipedia as it is existing today. But do you mind if I mention my project to improve European EnglishĀ ? davidjacobchemla 27 may 2005
  • KeepĀ : European English does not exclude UKĀ ; European English does support British EnglishĀ : in Europe we prefer the suffix "ise"(UK) than "ize" (USA)Ā ; In Europe we prefer "colour"(UK) than "color"(USA). There is no reason to delete this article, and to censor European English. User:migueule 27 may 2005

Version as of 27 May 2005

[edit]

I've rewritten the article. I removed the original research and added three possible meanings of European English. It's a kind of disambiguation page now, but a little bit more than that. Nobbie 07:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: With the drastic changes made by User:Nobbie, I suggest everyone should revisit the page and reconsider their vote, because it is no longer the same article that they voted on. It is such a drastic change I would even suggest that maybe there needs to be a new vote. BlankVerse āˆ… 10:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • neutral it is much better now, but I dont know if it deserves an article. The EU style guide can be something that can be useful. But I dont think we should confuse the English used in Ireland and the UK (these people's native language and their main vehicle of expression), with the English used in mainland Europe (just a learning language). Maybe European English article would be just for UK/Ireland and English language in Europe for the use of English in the EU. But please include only factual information (use of data from the EU is a good source). probably, a conversation between a French with an Italian or a Spanish with a Portuguese, etc. will not be in English, but in a sort of a mixed romance language. Eastern Europeans speak Russian, it is their lingua franca. English seems very popular in Germanic and Scandinavian countries, there could be a section about that. It is not that popular in Latin countries, elder people dont like English, while younger people like it. In fact, the use of English/French/German in the EU is a declared weapon in Portugal for the supporters of the "no" in the EU constitution referendum, which the government and the president are keen to make, even after the French earthquake.-Pedro 11:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is European English any different than UK English? DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, but this requires a tremendous amount of work to make it acceptable even as a disambiguation stub. Nobbie should be commended for his/her work thus far, but there's still a very long ways to go. As for the "comedy" at the link mikka noted, I couldn't help but notice that in year 1 "c" would be dropped from the keyboard, but by the end, it was still there (in "ech" (for "each)). Now, in the interest of REAL euroenglish, let me transliterate: kĆ­p, bat qis rĆ­kwĆ yƤrz a trƤmĆØndas ƤmĆ unt av wƤrk tƤ mĆ©ik it ƤksĆØptibƤl Ć­vƤn Ć©z a disĆ©mbigyĆŗĆŖixƤn stab. NĆ”bĆ­ xud bĆ­ kƤmĆØndid fƤr hiz/hƤr wƤrk qas fĆ”r, bat qĆ©r z stil a vĆ©rĆ­ lĆ³gh wĆ©iz tƤ go. Ɖz fƤr qƤ "kĆ”midĆ­" Ć©t qƤ ligk mikka notid, Ć”i kud nt help bat notis qet in yĆ­r 1, "c" wud bĆ­ drĆ”pt fram qƤ kĆ­bord, bat bĆ”i qĆ­ end, it waz stil qĆ©r (in "ech" (fƤr "Ć­tx")). NĆ”u, in qĆ­ intrist av stĆ”pigh kƤnfĆ­wzigh pĆ­pƤl, Ć”i l djast stĆ”p raitigh...Ā :-p Tomer TALK 06:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can convince me the term is really widespread in these meanings. The rewrite is much better, but it still smells like a neologism to me. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Scott eiĻ€ 21:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles Revolution

[edit]

Yet another crystal-ball N-Rev page with absolutely no information that wasn't made obvious by the game's title. --EvilZak 05:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Kept and marked for cleanup. -- Scott eiĻ€ 21:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comunleng

[edit]

I can't find any references to this on the internet that don't seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. Evil Monkeyāˆ“Hello 05:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The French and Spanish versions of the page are much more extensive, perhaps too much so for an encyclopedia but it leads some credence to its existence. There are also a lot of web pages that link to one or more of the language versions. On the other hand, I could not find any pages unrelated to Wikipedia either. Failing independent verifiability, I agree for deletion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless verified, delete. Wikipedia is not the place to post your own research. Harro5 06:09, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. After a quick Google search there is nothing to suggest this isn't just another linguistics student trying to re-invent Esperanto and using Wikipedia to promote it. --Fazdeconta 12:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is actually a well-recognized auxlang name. 24.4.127.164 11:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here. Check this out: http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_comunleng.htm 24.4.127.164 11:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The site that you posted gives Wikipedia as the source of the information. Evil Monkeyāˆ“Hello 20:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's a useful article, even if the language is not very widely known. -- BRG 18:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why must VfD be a popularity contest for more obscure topics? The language is only five years old. The article exists in two other languages on Wikipedia. Surely it's no more harmful to keep this than to keep Europanto (which is a little bit more popular, granted...) --cprompt 23:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you show me some sources that aren't Wikipedia mirrors or based on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Evil Monkeyāˆ“Hello 00:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I can't. I only translated (well, cleaned up Babelfish output of) a portion of the original Spanish article. The author there should be able to support it. Under the interpretation of Wikipedia:No original research that Wikipedia should not host "primary sources", I really can't defend this article. --cprompt 22:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • So does that mean that you are changing you vote to delete? Evil Monkeyāˆ“Hello 21:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lack of expertise on this, flag for clean-up if it survives VfD, perhaps it should have had a dispute instead of a VfD in the first place--Tznkai 01:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another conlang promotion article. -- Cyrius|āœŽ 05:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - conlangs are a special case IMHO. Bacchiad 04:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CryptoDerk 04:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The first part of the article would benefit from a more neutral POV, though. Ar 15:19, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. Three interwikis? Definately notable. This page definately needs to go through a cleanup.Almafeta 19:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmm, those articles are also completely unreferenced. It's possible to submit made-up articles in multiple languages. ā€” Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, three interwikis for a conlang implies notability. Kappa 17:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto for you, Kappa. Saying it exists because there are interwikis is very lazy. ā€” Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • But three interwikis is also three places where it has been regarded as notable enough to survive a VfD. F'rex, take the French wikipedia: although the article was started by 83.134.150.* (here) as an article very similar to its current English state, it has been expanded by users unrelated to that original poster. There's an audience for this language. Almafeta 17:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can provide an external reference. If this was notable it could be verified right away. ā€” Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (damn edit conflicts) No references that did not originate with Wikipedia. The article doesn't even give the name of an inventor(s). The is the very essence of non-verifiable information. (and multiple interwikis does not imply notablity, hoax articles have been interwikied before) func(talk) 21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interwikis =/= automatic good article. ā€“ ugen64 21:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is looking like a close vote, so I'd like to make a point for future voters: Even if this article survives the current VfD, it will ultimately be sent back repeatedly, because it doesn't answer even the most basic questions of notability and is in no way verifiable:
    • Who created it? (I'm guessing it was the Spanish Wikipedian who created the article)
    • Approx. how many speak it? (I'm guessing 1, the Spanish Wikipedian who created the article)
    • Where is the source of the information contained in the article? (not including Wikipedia or our mirrors, "recursive sourcing" is not allowed)
    • So before voting "keep", perhaps you should see if you can answer any of the above questions first. func(talk) 19:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If more information (most notably, the creator) cannot be found, instead of outright deletion, perhaps summing up the article in a sentence or two and listing it under "Esperanto reforms" in Esperantido could be an acceptable compromise. Almafeta 18:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with this last proposition. I discussed with the editor of this article (I don't remember in which language) and it has seemed to me comunleng is known by an only guy and it is not possible to know more about. --Arno LagrangeĀ āœ‰ 22:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I did that; it's ready to be redirected. (The Esperantido page is a little rough, but it's growing, and help from the esperanto Wikipedia community is being enlisted, so.)
  • Comment. OK, I'm just baffled here. This is like some kind of jury nullification going on. ArnoLagrange has just stated that this comunleng is "known by an only guy", ie: it is an original creation of the Wikipedian who first wrote it, ie: it is original research, and we don't do original research. func(talk) 15:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless func's questions of 2 June above can be answered in the article to show verifiability and some kind of importance. I have indeed seen it in lists of conlang names, but I was unaware that it is known by only one person. Google shows no web presence outside Wikipedia. One recent Usenet reference indicates "some use", though based on Arno's post above that writer may have been mistaken. --Cam 16:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant to say no web presence outside Wikipedia and various lists of conlangs. -- Cam 16:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. As an example of a salvageable conlang article: Ceqli, which survived deletion, is a language with a known author, Web pages with full grammar and vocab, a Yahoo group which has had multiple participants over several years, and a history of discussion about it in the conlang/auxlang mailing lists and newsgroups. -- Cam 16:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ramm Plumbing

[edit]

Advertising from a new contributor. DJ Clayworth 06:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not advertising. I don't own the company. I just though that since this is an encyclopedia it would be nice to have something about Ramm Plumbing up.

OOps I mean to write November 5, 2004. And I guess u guys r right. Robert was my grandfather. I did not realize though when I wrote this that a business (non-notable) could not be part of wikipedia. I thought that the site was for information about anything. Sorry

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hostilix

[edit]

I have serious concerns about the notability of this distribution. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Peanut Butter Fish Crackers

[edit]

No encyclopedic potential that I can imagine. PlatypeanArchcow 04:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puerile article of no real encyclopaedic worth. 21:31, June 1 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirected. -- Scott eiĻ€ 21:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Longbottom family

[edit]

I suppose it's meant to someday be some information on characters in the Harry Potter books but that info is well enough covered in Neville Longbottom and as it stands now, it is a ugly subsubstub. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Edward Davis

[edit]

Google search [2] brings up no relevant results; article seems to be vanity -- B. Ramerth (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

CAU and I)ruid

[edit]

Vanity page about a website with 383 Google hits and an Alexa ranking somewhere in the 4-million range. sÉŖzlƦk [ +t, +c ] 07:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Rolando Sanders. Please do not modify it. The result was to delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiĻ€ 21:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ongar Chase

[edit]

If it's a real place, with a real community of interest, then I'm all for keeping it here. But Wikipedia is not a site for real estate agents to tote their wares. This could probably be rewritten by someone who knew the area, but as it is now it's real "4 b/r, all mod cons" material. Grutness...wha? 08:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 10:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chyawanprash

[edit]

Seems to be quasi-advertising. Claims unsupported by evidence. Not encyclopedic. Ben-w 08:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree. I also notice it is identical to [5]. Which article came first? DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I disagree with the view that the topic is not encyclopedic. It is a popular aryuvedic commodity and is widely used. Plus, the product has also been mentioned in ancient Hindu texts. --IncMan 12:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Lavish claims that look like a snake oil boast. If rewritten to NPOV, it might vanish altogether. What is it? Has it been clinically examined? If it's a historical entity, then that's all we'd need. Otherwise, this really looks like "Buy my panacea." Geogre 13:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and edit It is true that in its current state the article is not neutral. However, it would appear that this may be an actual folk remedy. If this information can be verified it should be kept but edited to conform to NPOV standards. note: if it can be verified that it is used or exists folklorically, not necessarily the truth of the medical claims.
Above message left by 68.77.242.127 --IncMan 22:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Just visit Dabur.com(Dabur) where ull notice that Chyawanprash is the company's top selling product and the site contains useful information on the topic (beleive me one cant clinically examine the uses of all herbal items. Ayurveda, is a science within itself but differs from modern medical science ). I'm not trying to advertise it, but the product definitely deserves a mention because of its uses and usage (the product is widely available in the Indian market).I have removed the unnecessary content from the article. --IncMan 22:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Vuvar1 23:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Need scientific basis for claims. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if the claims are true this article comes across as advertising. Megan1967 05:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. Radiant_* 11:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC) Weak keep, seems not to be an ad for a brand, but a description of a type of drink. Radiant_* 11:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If people call this an ad, then may I know what is an informative article in their view. --Marqus 13:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs work to make its claims less POV, but google seems to indicate that this herbal remedy is notable. For an Indian remedy, google finds many pages in English. Quale 03:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo. JamesBurns 10:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Leanne 05:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is not an ad, because Dabur is not the only company which sells Chyawanprash. Chyawanprash is not a patented tonic or something. It is ancient Ayurvedic formula, most popular in India. Please do a Google search with alternative spellings Chyavanaprasha, Chyavanaprash, Chyawanaprash etc. before voting delete. I've removed copyvio content from [6] and added some more information. utcursch | talk 11:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It still needs to be improved, including using some of the information from this VFD (such as listing the alternative spellings), but there is no reason as the article is currently written for it to be deleted. BlankVerse āˆ… 12:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The idea that ancient Ayurvedic texts specifically mention antioxidants, protein synthesis, Vitamin C etc is screaming at me, not that they would claim these effects similar to this, but that they would use the language like that. For example in claim that It also works as an antioxidant, thus slowing down the ageing process. I'd suggest that the Ayurvedic texts would claim they were anti aging, but the idea that they would claim this stuff is an antioxidant, a very western idea, seems wrong. The Benefits section looks like a modern interpretation of older claims. Until it is seriously cleaned up...No vote Sabine's Sunbird 20:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I can tell you atleast 15 inventions which were invented in the East years ago, but were believed to be western ideas. There are several yoga aasans which anti-oxidise the human body and it is clinically proven. Do you think Vitamin C and anti-oxidants is a modern concept? Just tell me, will a common westerner understand a Sanskrit word for anti-oxidants or Vitamin C? So hence using mordern terms to describe the effects of these ancient medicines does make sense. There is no legitimate reason to clean up the article. --Grubb 18:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about dissing the East. This tonic may indeed have been used to treat these conditions effectively, in which case they made the link between symptoms and cures. To say that they made the jump to understanding the mechanism of nutrition, oxidation etc you need to provide proof. Sabine's Sunbird 22:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of a proof do you require? Just do a google search and read several articles on its composition and effects. I suggest that you read a book on Acharya Shrishti(i'm not very sure about the name), one of the founders of Ayurveda. U'll realise that how advanced their medical science was. They had carried out human surgical operations in 150 B.C..--Grubb 19:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An encyclopedic article on an ayurvedic tonic from the east. deleting this would only further systemic bias. I've improved the article by adding something and wikified a couple of words. --Idleguy 15:07, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to The Empty Child. Sjakkalle 07:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Constantine

[edit]

This character is too minor to merit an article. See The Empty Child for full episode details, this article adds nothing. TimPope 08:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiĻ€ 21:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Khairul

[edit]

I'm not entirely sure about this one... Only 20 google hits for "Khairul Ariffin rap". Looks like vanity. It is true that they appeared in MTV Asia, but imho that is not enough to warrant notability. Sarg 08:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

JAKQ

[edit]

Vanity page for some non-notable band. Most search hits for JAKQ are not related. Rl 09:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

VanGuard Van Hire

[edit]

This is probably a hoax, and certanly not a notable business. It is supposedly "online" but various Google searches fail to find it. It is also not in the Bristol Yellow Pages or on yell.com. It also does not have a visible presence on the streets of Bristol. rbrwrĀ± 10:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Peyman nasehpour

[edit]

This seems to be vanity (written by the author about himself) -- B. Ramerth (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

W class cab controls

[edit]

This merits neither a page nor a redirect to W6 class Melbourne tram. One Google link. B. Ramerth (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does this article tell us anything at all, let alone anything of possible interest to merit its few kB on Wikipedia's servers? --Lejend 14:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I wouldn't have blinked if someone had speedied it, this article is for all practical purposes empty, and even if it wasn't, I can't see that it would be anything encyclopedic. ā€”Stormie 20:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to wikibooks. -- Scott eiĻ€ 21:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) keep. -- Scott eiĻ€ 05:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Common phrases in various languages

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a usage guide nor a a travel guide. This article has no chance of becoming encyclopedic, nor is there anything to stop it from growing indefinetly. A home might be found for it at Wikibooks or possibly Wikitravel.

Peter Isotalo 10:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

The alternative of moving it to Wikitravel is apparantly not an option due to incompatible licensing. It'll have to be Wikibooks then. Thanks to Cjensen for pointing this out.
Peter Isotalo 11:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being an inexperienced klutz, but I should've included common phrases in constructed languages in this vote as well. Are there any objections to including it in this vote?
Peter Isotalo 21:24, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
My delete/transwiki vote counts for that one too, but I'm afraid it's a little late to extend the VfD. ā€” mark āœŽ 21:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to go to Wikitravel. -- B. Ramerth (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised at how very complete it is, and suspicious of a copyvio, until I went to the history page and saw that the page has been around since December 2001. In other words it's one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia. So keep out of a sense of venerating one's elders. --Angr/comhrĆ” 16:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that you're not disagreeing with the fact that it's in obvious conflict with our policies. Were they around when the article was started? Did Wikitravel exist back then? I also had the impression that VfDs were supposed to be about the articles themselves, not the people who have contributed to them. / Peter Isotalo 19:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • No matter how flawed the reasoning behind a vote is, it's still valid. You've made it well known that you think these votes on these bases are bad, stupid, whatever. Now, it's bordering on harassing the voters. --Node 21:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move out of a sense that elders can be wrong and it should be at Wikitravel. Superm401-Talk 16:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it should definitely be moved to Wikitravel, or maybe even Wikibooks. Jotomicron 19:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikitravel. Megan1967 05:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 05:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. After spending hours wikifying the Hindi section, I just see this now. Oh, the bitter irony! Now I won't feel guilty for not starting the Urdu or adding IPA tonight. Perhaps I'll cut and paste into the Wikitravel Hindi/Urdu phrase book? It was sparse and full of errors. So not all was a waste I suppose. I also don't get the copyvio issue. Languages are public domain, right? Unless some dacoit is copying verbatim, it isn't preposterous that the contributer is a native speaker or student, right? Anyway, I do see the point for deletion. If languages don't evolve, they die; such it is here. Though having many related languages and the same phrases together is fascinating to compare on a theoretical linguistics level. Goodness gracious me, I just wish I hadn't of overlooked this article's pending status! As my first wikibution, it was good practice at the very least. Khirad 09:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this article as a waste of time at all. It just happens to be in the wrong wiki, and I think this list could be of immense value to Wikitravel. / Peter Isotalo 12:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hedley 16:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki both Common phrases in various languages and Common phrases in constructed languages to Wikitravel or Wikibooks or whatever might be appropriate. ā€” mark āœŽ 19:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Why should everyone be so delete-happy? Just leave it, what can it hurt? It's useful, and trans-wiki-ing is stupid bullshit. If I want to find something, I'll look on Wikipedia, I don't want to have to search a million different "wikis" because that makes me want to shoot the person who invented the word "wiki"--sĆ©bastien 05:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drini ā˜Ž 05:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only. This cannot be moved to directly to Wikitravel due to licensing differences (Wikitravel is CC-by-SA licensed). If moved there it will be immediately VfD'ed as a copyvio. Individual contributors who are interested are welcome to come to Wikitravel and work on the various phrasebooks. -- Cjensen 07:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not terribly unhappy with it, but it's probably better to transwiki to Wikibooks. It would be useful if appropriate Wikipedia pages linked to it however. / Alarm 08:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This could be incorporated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Language Template, as one of the standard external links, just like the ones to Ethnologue.
Peter Isotalo 11:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or move (as is without risk of deletionism), definitely not delete. ā€“ Kaihsu 15:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is not really that useful for tourists (anyone fancy a trip to Anglo-Saxon times?) but is of considerable interest from the linguistic point of view, in showing how a few common phrases are treated differently in different languages, and thus complements the various other articles of a linguistic nature. I would say this is eminently encyclopedic. If it gets too big it could be split up, perhaps by language family: constructed languages already have a separate article although Esperanto somehow appears in both! rossb 17:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree, being a linguist myself. The most important reason is that phrases and snatches like this are by far the least interesting from a cross-linguistic point of view. Look at the article: most listings are language-specific phrases lacking any grammatical embedding. Greetings for example are often fossilized scripts that are not comparable cross-linguistically ā€” incidentally, this 'article' does not even succeed in spelling out any of those scripts (it only contains the English 'hello' and 'goodbye' and and their loose equivalents on other languages). Demonstrative phrases like 'that one' and 'this' are either not interesting to compare because they're not really phrases, or they are impossible to compare because of missing (sentential) context. Additionally, the very few full sentences that there are are not glossed and thus are still useless for a linguistic comparison on a morpheme-by-morpheme basis. ā€” mark āœŽ 19:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This sounds like an argument for improving the article and putting it on a more scientific basis, rather than deleting it! rossb 20:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely not. It is unsalvageable, starting with the title. My general point is precisely that common phrases are the least interesting data from a linguistic point of view. ā€” mark āœŽ 20:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mark, this page provides samples (however representative or unrepresentative they may be) of languages, often with IPA representation. That alone is of enough linguistic value to me, especially since many of the phrases are repeated again in different languages and so can be used for comparison. And if it were intended as a phrasebook, I doubt it would use IPA as most tourists won't know it and most American tourists won't be willing to learn it. --Node 21:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Move it to Wikibooks. Wikibooks is a better medium for that sort of tutorial content, don't you think? Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not a tutorial. By the way, is there a better way to place a vote than by editing? A better method would be helpful and more efficient. Perhaps a forum such as the one presented by the [www.antimoon.com] website?
  • Keep, long established and thorough. Should be grandfathered. Definitely too useful to delete. Xoloz 17:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no strong reason to delete, and it's awfully useful, even encyclopedic. Basil Fawlty 00:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's "useful" it's a usage guide, if not it can only exist by the use of original research; both clearly violate our policies. Could someone voting to keep please present a single motivation that is not related to age, prestige of the contributors or completely unassociated VfD-politics? You're giving inclusionism a bad reputation here. / Peter Isotalo 06:18, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • That's pretty bad logic. Anything that's useful is a usage guide? Well, I find Wikipedia useful. Thus, you're all wrong and Wikipedia is a usage guide! And since I find cellphones useful, they must be usage guides too!! And sex is useful, that must be a usage guide as well. Hmm... I never realised so many different things were usage guides! --Node 07:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Whom are you trying to fool? The only argumentation given is that it's "useful" or old, and not a peep about the thouroughly unencyclopedic character of the article. You even admit yourself that it's unencyclopedic, and then blame me for being illogical. Again, I think you're giving inclusionism a very, very bad reputation. / Peter Isotalo 13:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
          • "If it's "useful" it's a usage guide". You said it. I responded. Duh. --Node 21:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ā„¬astiqueā–¼talk 14:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's kind of useful to get an impression of the various languages. Too useful to delete. Holger Finken 22:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "My hovercraft is full of eels". (alternatively delete). Edits to this vote are Holger Finken's sole contributions, btw. --Bishonen | talk 22:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazingly Strong Keep. Although encyclopaedic this article is not, it's also not full of snot. It's much much too useful, and you're much much too abuseful, for this article to go to pot. --Node 04:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • By the way, non narramus "interwiki" cando dispiagher sas pĆ zinas in su Wikitravel. Wikitravel non est unu de sas wikis de su fundatzione Wikimedia. --Node 04:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Och jag har en folkpartist i ƶrat. / --Peter Isotalo 19:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • That's all well and good, but that seems more like something you'd say in a doctor's office than on VfD. --Node
  • Keep. This article is very useful (though probably in need of cleanup), not only for the interested reader, but also as a merge destination for various foreign-language phrases that occasionally get added to Wikipedia. This is also a good merge destination for "List of x phrases" for languages that may not be as notable or large as List of Latin phrases. --Deathphoenix 12:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely Keep It's been of great use to me; I refer to it from time to time. It serves as a comparison of other languages. --Chris 02:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this definately falls into the class of articles of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide.--nixie 02:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- pne 08:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- this is exactly the sort of thing I used to enjoy browsing encyclopedias for as a kid. It's not harmful, it's factual, it's interesting, it's widely linked, it's still being actively edited and used. People are adding sounds to it! Moving this to Wikibooks would be a shame. ā€” Catherine\talk 14:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Lumijaguaari 05:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jeod

[edit]

We don't even have an article about the Dragon Riders game. What's the point of an article about a single random character from it? Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Beatnicks

[edit]

"band formed offically in late 2004". "We make more songs than we do covers, and they're better, and harder to play than the 3 note AC/DC songs. The Beatnick's hope to get into some live shows over the 2005 summer, and are interested at putting out an album, but, will take some time.... We have a sound that is so old, yet it is new compared to all of these stupid punk @$$ bands, who's music sounds like feces. ROCK ON!!!" Righto. Band vanity, NN. Rl 11:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article has been rewritten by the creator. VfD notice had to be reinstated. Rl 07:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

Most of the "delete" voters clearly expressed an opinion that a new entity can not generally be encyclopedia-worthy the day of its launch (or worse, the day prior) and that more time should be allowed before the decision is made to include it. The "keep" voters were less consistent in their reasoning. By strict vote-count, I count 20 "deletes", 20 "keep as is" (though ten of them had to be discounted as either anonymous or so new that they were indistinguishable from sockpuppets) and 6 "merge". Since the "merge" votes count as a variant of "keep", the decision to delete fails to meet the necessary concensus even though there is a clear majority (20 to 16) in favor of deletion. There is, however, an overwhelming concensus (26 to 10) that this should not remain as an independent article. Accordingly, I am going to call this one as a "merge and redirect". Relevant content has been merged with Kevin Rose per the recommendations below. (If anyone thinks I missed an important detail, you can view it in the page history and can merge it yourself.)

This decision should be considered binding until there is clear and convincing evidence that Systm is independently encyclopedia-worthy. That is usually taken to mean that the entity has been around long enough and has had enough general impact on society that a verifiable article of greater than stub length can be written and that the topic is widely enough known that we can expect the necessary critical mass of knowledgable reader/editors to keep the article neutral. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Systm

[edit]

A web videozine released tomorrow. Not encyclopedic. -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you recreate it, I again edit it with another VfD nomination. Come back when you're in fact encyclopedic, not 3 days old. -- Longhair | Talk 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete The Systm... -- In the mid to late 90's The Screensavers on ZDTV/TechTV became a phenomenon that has spun-off MANY web-based shows with The Systm being one. If you remove The Systm you must also remove TWiT and The Broken. Don't remove any of theseĀ !!
  • Keep -- A videozine released tomorrow... so just wait for tomorrow. Surely you can waitĀ ::calculates time:: 7 hours to see if it's worth keeping. --TexasDex 20:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Mrmiscellanious 22:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- No point deleting it, it is released in a few hours. Why delete it when The Broken and This Week in Tech are allowed? It is already famous and many people know about it. 202.173.180.85 23:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The anons (socks?) want to keep it. That's a good reason for deleting it. ā€” P Ingerson (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not involved with the creation of Systm, I am a regular Wikipedia user but can't get into my account (Peter McGinley) because the retrieve password feature is not e-mailing me a new password. If I did have access to my account, I would be logged in on it. 202.173.180.85 00:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this show is looking to be quite popular. We have an article for Friends, don't we? Popular TV shows are worthy of an article. If this thing flops, we can consider removing it, but espically in 4 hours, there'll be a lot to say about systm. --Oreckel 00:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Friends was a popular sitcom syndicated over the world, seen by roughly a third of a billion people. Systm will be lucky to see 10,000 viewers. This should be regarded as nothing more than an amateur podcast that gets its article deleted every day from this encyclopedia. Nothing differs from the two. And, if you want to combat it, please - shed some intelligence. --Mrmiscellanious 00:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't The Broken and This Week in Tech be deleted too, if they are amateur videozine/podcasts according to you? All three of these are very popular. 202.173.180.85
Definitely. If someone would put up a VfD, I'd sign it. --Mrmiscellanious 02:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiousity, what number of viewers would constitute this as encyclopedia-worthy? --Oreckel 05:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Systm is not an average radio podcast. It is a professionally-produced series of videos, from some very well-known TV hosts. --taestell 22:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is huge. If you delete this, might as well delete "television", "electricity" and "internet" while you're at it. --JimXugle 11:14PM EST, May 23rd 2005
Exactly. How about entries on under-performing in ratings TV shows be deleted too? 202.173.180.85 03:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad/spam. CryptoDerk 04:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a large videozine and deserves a page here on Wikipedia Salvag 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, sockpuppet parade. Firebug 05:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a videozine with a notable cast, and it seems like the demand for the first episode was fairly high.--Matteh (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This "show" so far hasn't impressed me, and contains some less then truthful content, but such is the power of the internet, and it's no reason to get rid of the wiki page. 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I just watched it, and its kinda dissapointing, but the next ones should be more promising. In anycase, Wikipedia should be based on the diversoty of content. This is a real topic, and therefore, it should be allowed to exist!--Buickid 11:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC) ā€” (Buickid's 2nd edit.)
  • Delete vanity. It doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article simply because it exists, we need evidence of notability, particularly as it has only existed for one day. sjorford ā†’ā€¢ā† 14:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising, sockpuppet invasion. AŠøDя01DTALK 14:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is NOT a web guide, also sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Kevin Rose, unless people want that one deleted too. Average Earthman 16:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With all due respect, Wikipedia chronicles notable things, it does NOT exist to help things become notable. As for this: "If you delete this, might as well delete "television", "electricity" and "internet" while you're at it. --JimXugle", please attempt to factually show that this webcast will have a similar effect on society as say, television. If you can't do it, don't make ridiculous claims.

-- Scimitar

  • Keep -- As stated above there are already similar entries that are already accepted. More importantly than that, given Kevin Rose's existing fan base and the quality of the show, Systm may very well define how the online TV format should be done. I think it has huge potential of being a very significant topic. In my opinion people come to Wikipedia for information on non-mainstream topics like this if they wanted a standard encyclopedia they have many other choices. -Ferg
    • Saying something has been "already accepted" is a fallacy; everything contributed to Wikipedia is accepted. Regarding "may very well define," "huge potential," etc.: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when this webcast becomes notable, it might deserve an article. AŠøDя01DTALK 17:36, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all in Videozine. Attack of the 50 feet sockpuppets. Oh, and I don't think this is notable enough to deserve its own article, but it might be a good idea to merge all the articles about videozines in a Videozine article. Sarg 18:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Kevin Rose, a popular TV personality, just left the G4 television network to work full time on this program and The Broken. --taestell 19:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Kevin Rose until it gains the notability to stand on its own. --InShaneee 19:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it achieves notability. RickK 19:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, and supported by a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 20:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No credible third party references to support notability. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kevin Rose. The reason the show is important is because of Kevin Rose. Until the show gets popular enough to warrant its own article. Best merge it to Kevin's article. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 00:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN. And kill the socks. Radiant_* 08:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If it becomes a cultural phenomenon, then we'll talk about including it. Xcali 23:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 10:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why Delete? If you think this article is unimportant, go look at Hide and Q. I am sure I just offended some of the Star Trek: The Next Generation fans. It is a piece of TV, and a piece of Star Trek. The Systm is part of the internet, and one of the greatest forms of media. if I deleted Hide and Q, surely some Star Trek fans would get mad, but it is just a fraction of the star trek NG episodes. "but it might be a good idea to merge all the articles about videozines in a Videozine article" Why dont I just merge Hide and Q to the Star Trek: The Next Generation article? " Wikipedia's credo is "the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Shouldn't an encyclopedia contain everything? --Neo123195 10:08 (UTC), 27 May 2005
  • Merge with Kevin Rose, he seems to be the main reason for it's importance at the moment. Falcorian 22:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Kevin Rose (for now). As Falcorian stated, Mr. Rose is the main basis for its popularity. Until it becomes notable on its own, merge it. iKato 05:47, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ā€”Markaci 2005-06-1 T 02:09 Z
  • Delete One episode and hardly any information available on its distribution/popularity. It doesn't deserve an article just because it is a side project of some D-list celebrity, and it doesn't have enough of a cult following (or content for that matter) to write about. Definitely watch for new developments, should this change. -- uberpenguin 02:50, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Merge with Kevin Rose. On second thought, this would be better since it will add more content to that article but still keep the mention of it around so a new article isn't formed until there is enough information available to merit one. -- uberpenguin 02:52, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Delete, insignificant. -- Hoary 05:53, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This is big from Kevin Rose and I think videozines are something that will change media distribution, now that we know the Internet is able to help people get their message across faster. It'll be recreated at some point in the future, so what's the point in deleting this article? This isn't pointless "newb" stuff! People will want to know what Systm is and what the background of it is. Just keep it. ..... added at 01:26, 2005 Jun by 69.230.167.162
  • Delete drini ā˜Ž 01:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a review of the article and the referenced websites reveal them to be a combination of advertising and vanity posting. It's not notable. Tobycat 04:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable as The Broken. siafu 20:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely worthy of Wikipedia AyrtonSenna
  • Keep. I came to Wikipedia a moment ago specifically to look up Systm, and that's how I saw the VfD. I think that alone ā€” the fact that I expected WP to have something to say about Systm ā€” is reason to keep. For now. --TreyHarris 21:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shulei

[edit]

"Shulei is a famous model from Osaka, Japan. She was born Eiko Yata on December 14, 1951." I have failed to verify any of the facts stated in the article. Unverifiable, it seems. Rl 11:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Arrogant Bastard Collective

[edit]
and also Sportskid, Churchburner, The Groin

Apparent nonsense, apparently unverifiable. Google gets zero hits for this. -- The Anome 13:15, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are a fool. It's also spelt "apparently". Learn more about wrestiling -- Jonbo 14:24, May 22, 2005 (BST)

  • Great, now can you give me a cite where I can check the validity of your articles, please? -- The Anome 13:23, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Prestone It's also spelt "site" -- Jonbo 14:31, May 22, 2005 (BST)

Nope. It's "cite", as in "citation".
  • Comment: Please, remember to refrain from personal attacks, such as calling people fools. Mr Bound 13:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the four of them. Non verifiable, looks like a hoax/joke. And wih the addition of personal attacks! Sarg 13:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 2 results returned for criteria "arrogant bastard" in forum search. Opinion: the entire collective is fictitious. --Lejend 13:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this be a speedy deletion candidate, then? -- The Anome 13:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Doubtful. I think the VFD path is probably the way to go here. And could someone please reformat this conversation? My eyes are bleeding trying to follow it. Mr Bound 13:56, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yo' mama! -- Jonbo 11:38, May 29, 2005 (BST)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted with a very large axe. -- Cyrius|āœŽ 17:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mishing

[edit]

Dictionary-like definition for a process that seems to be either nonexistent or only recognized as this from a very small group of people. Google search for "mishing" turns up results on unrelated things. Mr Bound 13:30, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP IT! Keep keep keep.

Strong KEEP IT! Very informative article!

  • The above contribution by 130.88.52.94 at 08:25, May 30, 2005.
  • KEEP IT! I myself am a misher and would be offended if this was deleted. Teddy
    • The above contribution by 130.88.84.59 at 12:17, May 29, 2005.
  • delete It seems like nonsense. --TimPope 13:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete The term pronounced "mish" is contraction of the word mission, an infrequently used slang term in the north of England. It has little importance in dialectic speech, now being used rarely and mostly amongst children of primary school age. All other information on the page is nonsense. --Lejend 13:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The place to say "the word mish is a slang contraction of the word mission" is the dictionary, of course, which is over there. Uncle G 00:05, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • I now see the apparent additions to the page. "Liverpool Mishketeers" returns zero Google results, and seeing as the homepage of the group is a Geocities page, I think it confirms non-notability. Mr Bound 14:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it, very informative, provided enough information, past and present, that can help other bored/frustrated teenagers either take part in their own 'mishes' or to create their own pointless yet fulfilling past-times. -- Ashall bogus, actually by 82.42.229.59
  • Keep It!!! Is everyone stupid? This is a great page providing a valuble insight into a worldwide teenage phenomonon. It explains in detail why geocities address is used. -- Rob bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
  • Personal attack removed by TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib). -- Anon bogus, actually 81.132.114.125
  • Keep It!! Well I like it. --User:Tony bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
    • Comment. The last five edits, made by IPs 82.42.229.59 and 81.132.114.125, are, according to Arin [7] both owned by the RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. I suspect that these votes can be disregarded as being made by the same anonymous individual, as the history clearly shows that none of these users was logged in. Also, I would like to remind said user(s) to please refrain from personal attacks such as contending my sexual preferences. Mr Bound 20:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Jolly Good!! Much better than usual articles! Small audience? SOmeone hasnt been to Ukraine.... --User:Joyce bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
  • Keep It Does exactly what it says on the tin, top job! User:Terry bogus, actually by 82.42.229.59
  • Personal attack removed by TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib). User:Beethoven bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
  • Ja Keep it ja i really like it. User:Vladimir bogus, actually by 81.132.114.125
  • ICE TEA Don't knock it untill you have tried it, this is exactly the same, top site guys, if this goes I go! User:John Francis Paul Baird-College Court-Edwardian bogus, actually by 82.42.229.59
  • Disgusted The complaints and the fact that there is even a discussion board proclaiming the possible deletion of a past time in which I have donated vast amounts of money and time in order to increase the awareness of such a marvelous social gathering. Dr. Jonny Lewis phd bogus, actually by 82.42.229.59
  • Delete and sentence the sock puppets to six weeks of Lamb Chop's Play-Along. ESkog 21:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sock puppet limit has been reached. RickK 23:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be only popular amongst socks. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Protestors in this vote really should go play outside. Neologism/vandalism. Geogre 02:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nonsense; wouldn't even have noticed it except for this ridiculous sockpuppet campaign. Antandrus (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense as quickly as possible, even if it means a sysop "accidentally" bumping Delete This Page *wink wink*. Master Thief GarrettTalk 03:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme anti-sock prejudice. Alai 03:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense (regrettably not patent) and hoax. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have removed the personal attacks placed by the anonymous users, since they contained no arguments for or against deletion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 05:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vandal supported nonsense. jni 06:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT. In all seriousness, this isn't nonsense! Mishing is an actual pastime and an actual slang term used by Europeans. The article is accurate throughout and at the same time it's funny. The figures cited have a small margin of error and facts presented are indeed true.
  • Do you people have no sense of humour? Is anything that isn't 'academic' enough for you to be deleted? The fact is, if anyone DOES want to know what mishing is, then this page is ideal-not only this, but it's hilarious.
  • Aside from the above - most of the votes for non-deletion aren't 'bogus' at all. They're from different IPs. They should surely be counted. The names are actually the real names of the people who posted. Once again-the sense of humour arguement is coming into play here. Don't you people get it? It's funny and informative!
  • AND OH YES I ALMOST FORGOT...THIS IS NOT A HOAX!!! IT'S ACTUALLY TRUE.
  • KEEP IT! Ok, so some of the points *might* be made up, but the "Mishing" itself actually exists, so it should stay. by John Baird

KEEP IT Not only is it a valid activity but it also encourages teenagers not to use drugs and/or wear hooded tops.

  • KEEP IT - on the basis that 'Mishing' DOES actually exist and thus should have a page dedicated to it, explaining the pastime to others.
  • I seriously recommend that this webpage be kept. It provides an insight into a very weird (maybe wonderful?) world of a group of youths in the Liverpool Region of England. Having travelled to Ukraine on a visit to Kiev, (sorry, but i went to see the Eurovision Song Contest), I was informed of the phenomonon of "mishing". Apparently, the original three "Mishketeers", spread the phenomonon through a mutual appreciation of Liverpool Football Club with another small group of Ukrainian youths. However, in the Ukraine, mishing has more of an edge apparently. Mainly because you stand a risk of getting shot. Yours Sincerely, Bally
  • Can I just say thankyou to 'Bally' for that...whoever you are.
  • Keep this page! I've heard of Mishing, and it does exist. The page should stay because it is not made up. And on the plus side, it's also hilariously funny in parts. Moreover, I think if anyone did want to know about mishing, then this page is ideal.
  • Tenofalltrades, my good friend, I think you'll find I've contributed to other pages as well. Sincerely, Bally.
    • If your first contribution was to this page, that is what is important. And your first contribution was the one denoted by Ten. Mr Bound 20:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without even looking at the article. Anything attracting this many sock puppets must be deleted. ā€” JIP | Talk 09:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for sure. --minghong 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. carmeld1 23:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It! not only is this article informative, factually correct, witty AND explains all the quieries from small minded 'intellectual' bigots above, it also provides an invaluble insight into youth culture and a worldwide phenomonon. Perhaps "delete" voters are 'sock puppets'Ā ????? Rob 23:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let the old girl stay. Light hearted amusement never goes wrong plus, I ask that some of you go to Ukraine and see the influence of mishing on some of the youth there. Its very impressive. Yours Most Sincerely, Bally.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Mishing"

    • User already voted above, with the account's first contribution to Wikipedia.
  • Delete. And send the socks "upon a pointless and seemingly impossible journey on a shoestring budget" to somewhere far away! ā€” P Ingerson (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it would be an absolute mish if this page was to be deleted

unsigned vote from 130.88.52.65Ā (talkĀ Ā· contribs) ā€” P Ingerson (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vindern SF

[edit]

A team in 3rd division junior doesn't need to be here. Sarg 13:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Tom and Briggzy

[edit]

"Tom and Briggzy is a series of Microsoft Paint produced comic-books created by Thomas Burnett of Leek, in England." [...] "According to Burnett, the poor artwork (which often includes things such as stick-figures and peoples heads shoddily imposed onto them) is designed to add to the comedic effect, though some critics deem it to be Burnetts relative ineptitude towards computer based art.". 0 hits on Google for "Tom and Briggzy". Vanity, NN, attack page, or hoax. Take your pick. Rl 13:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Insert Name Here

[edit]

I'm putting this up for deletion, because, unless someone else has heard of this band, I'm guessing it's just a random group that has created this page for self-promotion. - booyabazooka

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Carried out at 14:51, 4 Jun 2005 by user:Xezbeth who apparently forgot to close the discussion.

Alshander

[edit]

This should be deleted. There is no "Alshander" in Norse Mythology, it's not even an Old Norse name. Check any reference work or even the web. This article was created by an anonymous user with just one other edit (to Skuld, also about this purported Alshander). My guess is that this is material from some fantasy story or game mistakenly believed by the editor to be authentic mythology. Haukurth 14:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Al-Huda Mosque

[edit]

Delete. Not particularly ancient, not particularly large. The article makes no claim to notability - there must be a million places of worship like this around the world. Eixo 15:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think everyone should just go easy on the PC here, the joke was harmless. In any case, how can a joke about Islam be "racist" (if that is indeed what you are trying to say)? I was under the impression that adherence to the religion of Islam was independent of race or ethnicity. Eixo 21:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mocking peopleā€™s places of worship is a racist remark and itā€™s unacceptable. Trying to justify it, donā€™t change the fact his comment was offensive and racist. Iā€™m certain if this was the case against other faith, it would have raised the roof. - Such remarks is in no way going to encourage people of all faithā€™s to contribute to the development of such great tool like Wikipedia. --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM (talk) 22:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, you're wrong. If anyone were to make a pun on the word "church" (can't think of one right now) no one would raise an eyebrow. In the Muslim world there's an acceptance for abridging the freedom of speech that you won't find in the West, and that you shouldn't find in Wikipedia. Klonimus' comment should stand, and anyone who wants to criticize it should be free to do that. Thatā€™s how it works in a free society. Eixo 01:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've got a few:
  • churlch ā€“ a really vulgar church (like the Elvis wedding chapel in Las Vegas)
  • churnch ā€“ a church where they make butter
  • churpch ā€“ a church for birds
  • Churac ā€“ a church where the priest decides to fire the deacon to appease the congregation, not realising itā€™s his guts they hate
That oughta raise the roof. Eixo 11:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I was diaappointed to see Klonimus say that, but I'm sure in his mind he was just making a little joke, rather than being intentionally offensive. Kappa 23:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that "mosquito", as the diminuitive of "mosque", would be the term for a little mosque: ie. one that isn't big enough for an article. --Carnildo 00:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ding Ding Ding. We have a Winner. I'm glad you got my reference. Mosquito is a spanish diminutive of fly, so a mosquito is a little mosque. I'm not against the inclusion of mosque's per se. But in order to get my vote, it would have to be shown that this Mosque is a notable Large Public Object. On a separate note, it's a bit saddening to see people get so fired up over anything that they conceive as being insulting to Islam. To some extent this is a microcosm of the hysteria that lead to 18 people getting killed in rioting over the unproven desecration of a Koran. Klonimus 10:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a good joke, but just for the record it's incorrect. The Spanish word for mosque is mezquita (from the Arabic masjid = "the place of prostration"). So mosquito would not be the Spanish diminutive for mosque. Eixo 13:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:Klonimus has said far more offensive things than this little remark. I don't even know if he intended to offend people with it.Yuber(talk) 22:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Itā€™s either people are very supportive of insulting Muslim's in the west that some try to come up with new definition to words to justify the racism behind it, or they are just uneducated ā€“ as far as the English language is concerned and this is the language used in the topic discussed here, not Spanish or Indian, English, the word used to identify a Mosque is very degrading and insulting to Muslims. MOSQUITO: two-winged insect whose female has a long proboscis to pierce the skin and suck the blood of humans and animals. - Mosquitos: are the members of the family Culicidae; these insects have a pair of scaled wings, a pair of halteres, a slender body, and long legs. The females of most mosquito species suck blood from other animals. Size varies but is rarely greater than 15 mm (0.6 inches). - Thereā€™s no justification for supporting racism as some people got out of there way to justify such indecent remark against a place of worship to Muslims. I must have completely failed to see that an INSECT is the WEST is the way to identify with Islamic places or worship ā€“ its even more saddening to see others justify such remarks. - I want no association with Wikipedia from this day forward since RACISM and OFFENSIVE remarks are justified and accepted by so called educated-people, rather then being corrected - Good luck to the non racist people. --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM (talk) 12:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 18:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Carried out at 11:56, 22 May 2005 by user:Mackeriv (who apparently forgot to close out the discussion.)

Lescialist

[edit]

Neologism, self-admitted Samw 15:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much a vanity article. Google returns zero results. I'll remove the article. No need for more voting.--Kaonashi 15:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles were deleted, according to speedy deletion policies.--Kaonashi 17:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Rossami (talk) 02:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afghan people

[edit]

Original research Denniā˜Æ 16:22, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I take back what I said. The article has been completely changed. It has no trace of the version we were debating about just a while ago. It looks pretty decent now, and deserves staying in Wikipedia. So, because of that, I vote keep. I'll also ask all of you to reconsider your decisions.--Kaonashi 02:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: speedy deleted as nonsense. Crotalus horridus 20:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W00t_paradox

[edit]

Non-informative, junk + possibly original research. Splintercellguy 16:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page speedy deleted as patent nonsense. Denniā˜Æ 18:44, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiĻ€ 05:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kae

[edit]

Fan speculation on Star Wars game. --Denniā˜Æ 17:27, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

  • If valid, it probably should be merged into the Darth Traya page. But it looks too much like pure speculation, and so I vote to delete. ā€” 18:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. There is already a Darth Traya article on Wikipedia that includes most of the information on this article. What isn't on the Darth Traya article that is present here, appears to be pure speculation, as I do not recall any mention of living quarters on Coruscant or about Yavin 4 in KotOR II. However, if this information can be backed up, it should be merged with the Darth Traya article. --Nufy8 00:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. Most of this is plausible enough, but so much of it is unsourced, and AFAIK, the only source for these events are the games themselves, and I'm pretty sure that I didn't miss that much of her backstory. So bring in the confirmable details, and rm the rest. --maru 02:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Darth Traya. Jamyskis 10:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fanfiction, barring some sources. --Scimitar 13:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At the very least, needs some carriage returns tossed into that mountain of text. Wikification and verification would also be nice. 216.158.31.195 17:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - uglyness is not a reason to delete, but to cleanup. Should be marked {{cleanup}} and merged. Ā·Ā·gracefool |ā˜ŗ 00:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - This is the coolest article ever! Keep it, and you guys, stop whining about sources etc. just enjoy they article, and stop complaining!
Comment And by that logic, we should let every piece of crap article that some newbie writes stay, because its "teh coolest article EVAH!" Its not a canon source and has no place here.--Kross 10:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As far as I know (and I've been playing KOTRII alot lately), there is no actual information on Kae. She's mentioned as one of the Jedi Masters that taught Revan and thats one of the few times she's mentioned in the game. Its believed that Kae is Krea/Darth Traya, but I'm not sure.--Kross 10:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - This is far too speculative, and cites no sources. None of this is backed up by the game, and can at best be considered only a weak implication.

Comment Again You loser, just get a life. Stop critisizing other people when you don't even know if it is false misinformation. This site would be better without people like you, Kross

  • I have common sense - Hey, Kross, just to tell you, I agree with you fully. Well, almost fully. You have made a good point about how newbies should not write fake stuff and put it up. Well, this is actually quite a good article, and if you cant even use you brain for once, it is backed up by the book: 'A guide to Kotor', which is both approved of and congratulated by Lucas Arts as a 'G-Canon'. Anyway, don't call this newbie stuff, the expanded universe is newbie, that load of absolute crap and garbage, so go insult yorself and stop being a low life.
    • Comment. Interesting. The KotOR II strategy guide says little to nothing about Kae's background - which includes lack of information on her supposed stay on Coruscant, as well as her alleged trip to Yavin 4. And, although I do not own the original KotOR strategy guide, I highly doubt it reveals information on a character that wouldn't even make an appearance until the next year. Oh, and a guide to a Star Wars videogame being G-Canon? Maybe that's a typo, because G-Canon refers to the movies, their scripts, the novelizations of the movies, and the radio plays based on the movies. Not videogame guides. Nufy8 04:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It would be C canon at best, but is most likely S or N. AlphaxĀ Ļ„ĪµĻ‡ 10:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€“ ugen64 19:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fichu

[edit]

Certainly a topic worthy of an encyclopedic article. However, after removing the dictionary.com copyvio, the article consists of a number of claims that seem largely unverifiable trivia. Was Jack London obsessed with fichu? Did A. E. van Vogt's wife wear a fichu when they were writing? And who is this Fredrick W.C. Charles, anyway? Rl 17:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have restored a basic definition of "fichu" and reformatted the article. I removed some of the obviously non-encyclopedic material but did not verify the claims which remain. If these can be verified, I vote to keep the article because it does go beyond the scope of a dictionary definition. If the claims are shown to be false, I vote to delete the vandalism. Dystopos 19:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The supposed literary references in the article were unverifiable and bore the faint odor of mischief. There's not much left to make it encyclopedic. Perhaps a scholar of costume could make something of it. Dystopos 14:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. At this point there is nothing left of the article but a dicdef. carmeld1 00:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to Nyak Tso. ā€“ ugen64 19:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Nyak Tso"

[edit]

Personal page. There's content, but should either be deleted or made into an article. Splintercellguy 17:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: speedy deleted as a personal attack.

Neo (Atheist Network user)

[edit]

Anti-vanity page. Obviously a troll 131.111.8.103 18:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coherence condition

[edit]

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 17:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ā˜Ž 15:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ā˜Ž 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent seems to be 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ā˜Ž 21:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
It is probable that these pages are mostly original research. 'Guilt by association' for this page is not a valid argument. I thought on first sight that this was likely some general point about field theory/differential systems. I suppose one has to accept that after a few months here and no advance, the chances are less. Charles Matthews 09:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, here were my explicit reasons: The article states a Lagrangian . The second term would be called the "kinetic term" but its bizarre, a normal kinetic term would be quadratic in s-dot, with no additional factor of s. Thus, right off the bat, we have a formula that needs deep justification, and none is given. Next, we have something that appears to be a variational minimization of this lagrangian: But this expression seems to have missed the s^2 term in the Lagrangian. Why was it dropped? There is no explanation for this. Why is this called a "coherence condition"? It looks like some ordinary variational principle, except a term is inexplicably missing. We also have gems like: "If then ". I can guess that D is some kind of derivation, but that is not stated in the article. If this is a field equation, its certainly not derived from that Lagrangian. It seems to be saying that s is harmonic, but there are few harmonic functions that take the form Now, maybe if a,b and/or x were grassman variables, then this last formula might make sense; in supersymmetry, harmonic functions are always first order, since the square of a grassman variable is always zero. But this article fails to use the words "antisymmetric" or "grassman"; it doesn't even mention "Clifford algebra", which the other articles in this series did. Next, we have "the field equation ". What happened, why is this not D^2? Subsquent formulas might make sense if the variables were grasmannian, but even so, one would have to assume that they were filled with typos and ommissions. Or something. This might also maybe sort-of make sense if one assumed this was a high-school calculus assignment filled with errors. Should I assume this is a treatment of some kind of supersymmetric classical differential equation? But to extrapolate to that would take a lot of work; and besides, what does "coherence" have to do with it? There's no quantum mechancis in here, much less a "vacuum state". This article seemed beyond repair to me. I VfD'ed it. linas 21:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Electromagnetic jet

[edit]

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 17:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. Google doesn't find anything but this article and page describing how to build your own fying saucer. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ā˜Ž 15:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out. I think this one is maybe supposed to be about the four-current, but it is not at all accessible. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent seems to be 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ā˜Ž 21:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extended Yukawa potential

[edit]

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. Google doesn't find anything. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ā˜Ž 15:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out yet. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent seems to be 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ā˜Ž 21:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nonlinear Coulomb field

[edit]

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. Google doesn't find anything but this article. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ā˜Ž 15:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out yet. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nonlinear magnetic field

[edit]

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I believe this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't believe that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gets some hits on Goolge, but given the other articles: Delete. --R.Koot 21:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out yet. This is one of the better of the series, but still nearly accessible enough I think. --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ā˜Ž 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent edits seems to be for 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ā˜Ž 21:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W-field

[edit]

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas using notation from a variety of different disciplines. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Particularly alarming is the claim By unknown reason it is remain beyond attention of physicists that exist the classical field which connect between themselves all type of forces. I think the reason is well-knownĀ :-) Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ā˜Ž 16:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out yet. I think the author means for the w-field to be the four-velocity, which has a more accessible article already. --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent edits seems to be for 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ā˜Ž 21:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quantization of the pionic interaction

[edit]

This page appears to marginal and possibly a crank physics page; the text appears to be filled with errors and inaccuracies. The topic is legit; it describes an approach to nuclear physics taken during the 1940's and 1950's, but I believe would be considered archaic today. The Schroedinger equation that is given seems almost right for a Yukawa potential; however, the use of the non-relativistic Schroedinger equation in a nuclear physics context is rather inappropriate. The solutions given in the article are garbled and incoherent. I believe this page constitues original research. It may be possible to rescue this page by severe and extensive editing, but it would be a major undertaking. This page appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages, all of which are far crazier than this page: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field. All of these appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. Google doesn't find anything but this article. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Careful what you call gibberish. This one actually mostly kind of makes sense. Its not gibberish, it just seems wrong in a lot of ways. linas 21:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Linas you could write a sub for this, describing what you said above? Paul August ā˜Ž 20:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Not really; I'd rather see pion enhanced to mention that 1) pions mediate the strong (nuclear) force, 2) that the Yukawa potential is a non-relativistic description for them, 3)the reletivistic equation for pions is the Klien gordon equation. 3) that they are pseudoscalars under parity inversion, 4) they couple to an axial-symmetric current 5) Skyrme's topological soliton aka 'cloud of pions' aka 'chiral model' is a decent model of the nucleon (proton/neutron). etc. No on actually "quantizes" pions very much, its a little more subtle than that since they're made out of quarks. I'll add this list to talk:pion linas 00:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent edits seems to be for 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ā˜Ž 22:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Mel Etitis (ĪœĪµĪ» Ī•Ļ„Ī·Ļ„Ī·Ļ‚) 08:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Nogueira

[edit]

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Kenny Gasperson

[edit]

Actor who played a minor character in a barely noteworthy movie. Rl 19:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anangu

[edit]

It is a word. This is not a dictionary. I can't see that it is more significant than any other word. Any useful information should be added to one of the many Australian Aboriginal articles. --Silversmith 20:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I transwikied it, so delete. ā€” A.M. 22:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but borderline. The author did try to add discussion and context in linguistics, so it's not as offensive as most dictdefs. If the whole entry has been transwiki'd, though, it's now duplicate material. Geogre 02:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 06:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can delete it if you like. I only added an entry for it because someone added a link to it on the Uluru page (not me), and they seemed to misunderstand that it was a Pitjantjatjara word exclusively, hence I put in the little explanation. Perhaps you can instead change the Uluru page to have a link to the Wikidictionary entry, so that this can be clarified a bit better. It seemed to me like there was a great deal of misunderstanding as to what the word meant, so I was trying to help things a bit. Alternatively, it could be expanded in to something that would be encyclopaedia-worthy, as it is rather a broad word. I am sure that someone knowledgeable of aboriginal languages and customs could do that. It's up to you.203.26.206.129 07:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if I can be so bold, what I think is a good suggestion is to do both. Firstly, make a link from the Uluru page (which references Anangu as a word) straight to Wikidictionary (I am sorry, I am a newbie, and don't know how to do that). Secondly, expand on my article here (which is a stub) to make it encyclopaedia worthy. A word like "Anangu" does not simply mean "people". It means a whole way of life. That is what makes it enyclopaedia worthy. Furthermore, it can be used interchangeably to mean all aboriginal people, or all aboriginal people of an area, and has so many different meanings. I am sure that it could be turned in to something encyclopaedia-worthy with the right writer. Please can you change this to a stub, and deal with it in that manner. 203.26.206.129 07:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, just another bit. This particular word is also used with lots of Aboriginal businesses. So it could also be a disambiguous entry to link to the various businesses that use the word "Anangu" as part of their name. I can think of a dozen off the top of my head. 203.26.206.129 07:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the Anangu are one of the more well known Australian Aboriginal tribes or peoples being included with the people associated with Uluru / Ayers Rock. The word does not just mean people it refers to particular people. I am appalled that anyone would nominate an article about a people for deletion. The article certainly needs expansion but nominating it for deletion should not be the way to achieve that.--AYArktos 10:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that that highlights the importance of having an argument, because Anangu is like saying "I am aboriginal" or "I am a member of a specific tribe". Anangu is not the name of a tribe (nor do aborigines use the name tribe - they refer to themselves as being from a particular country, such as being from Arrente country or from the Pitlands, or sometimes from a certain community). Furthermore, Anangu isn't just used in Uluru/Ayer's Rock. It's used in a large number of other places. I don't know the full extent of it though. But in the Ngaanyatjarra Lands, it is very important, probably more than in Uluru/Ayer's Rock. And the Ngaanyatjarra people have no claim over Uluru. 203.26.206.129 07:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page as it stands is not offensive and has interest. It apears to be factual, and to have considerable potential for expansion. Tannin 10:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (By the way, we should be careful not to confuse the source of an article with its content. Sure, the anon user who created the article has also created several patent nonsense articles that have been, or soon will be (quite properly) deleted or redirected - but this is irrelevant. This article is fine. Keep it. Tannin)[reply]
    • I think that you should be very wary of writing such personal attacks in a talk page. It is inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy, which could lead to your account being banned. 203.26.206.129 07:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a lot of the content of Pitjantjatjara actually belongs to Anangu, but I'd be happy to keep both. Unfortunately, we don't have anybody here from Ernabella to enter any first-hand information. --ScottDavis 13:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation demonstrates the importance of articles like Anangu! I chose Ernabella, South Australia as the most important town, as I'm from South Australia, and associate "Anangu" most strongly with Anangu Pitjantjatjara, who own (freehold!) a large tract of north western SA. You picked Warburton, Western Australia in Ngaanyatjarra country, and others have identified it with Uluru. Incidentally, I think I've heard Aborigines use the words "tribe" or "clan". It's a smaller grouping than "nation". I suspect Anangu is the "nation" composed of several of these other groups, like Ngarrindjeri nation consists of a number of groups along the Murray River. --ScottDavis 12:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have only ever heard aborigines refer to themselves as being from a "country" or "land", never "nation", "tribe" or "clan". But maybe I am talking to the wrong ones. The word "country" they use to mean their language group, such as Arrente, Ngaanyatjarra, Pitjantjatjara etc, while the word "land" can either mean that, or else simply their community/town or a smaller area like an outstation. We have maps at work which divide Australia up in to aboriginal countries, and only list the traditional aboriginal lands. Quite interesting. You can get one from Institute for Aboriginal Development if you want one. I think they are in the range of $60-$100 each. Internodeuser 08:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, and this coming from another DeLand resident... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris bensko

[edit]

Vanity; delete. Emiao 20:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Computer jargon Sjakkalle 11:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btkatc

[edit]

DictDef, computer jargon/slang. Can this be expanded? Otherwise transwiki to wikidictionary and delete. (no inlinks). 12 googles (some from wikipedia), so also non-notable RJFJR 20:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

San Juan del Sur

[edit]

More a tourism advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 20:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all real places, and cleanup. RickK 04:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caleb Koch

[edit]

Zero Google hits for ""Caleb Koch" actor. Either NN or hoax. Denniā˜Æ 21:23, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of prototype World War II infantry weapons

[edit]

Two weapons hardly justifies a list article -Cynical 21:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heavens Tower

[edit]

Fictional places that appear in one single video game usually shouldn't have their own articles, in my opinion. RPGs in the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series often have dozens of cities, and it would be silly to have articles for each one of them. Crotalus horridus 21:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

C-F Nadd

[edit]

Non-verifiable, non-notable and vanity, you can choose Sarg 21:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ara Fell

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. ā€”Xezbeth 19:01, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wtx

[edit]

This page is a duplicate of WTX Cmdrjameson 22:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Creepers

[edit]

Band vanity page. No significant info found in google Sarg 22:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Lorien Mayfair

[edit]

Vanity page DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Captain wow

[edit]

Band vanity DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland

[edit]

Strongly suspect this is largely nonsense Average Earthman 22:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I once met a woman who announced to me, "I just lost 100 pounds." I said, "Congratulations" (she looked to weigh about 105 lbs.). She said, "No. I'm the Queen of England." Well, this fellow abdicated from being king, so I should introduce the two of them. Hoax. Geogre 02:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Unfossilized dinosaur bones

[edit]

Hopelessly POV article containing no scientific facts, and a lot of nonsense (using Carbon Dating to date something millions of years old, for example), written by a creationist whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been for POV pushing and for pasting links to his website. The article is about a subject that is probably not notable enough to split from the main Dinosaur article and which would be pretty impossible to cleanup and use. The concensus of the long-time editors of the Dinosaur article seems to have been to redirect it, but the creationist continues to add the nosense. Joe D (t) 22:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • All we should be concerned with at this point is whether or not it is true. If it is then, sooner or later we will HAVE to Deal with this honestly and fairly, or else risk losing our own credibility. Also, at this point the page is only linked to the Discussion Page, and it is not highly visible. Annonymous
  • Yeah, well, should these ever become scientific and verifyable facts, then nobody will object to such an article. I'm not holding my breath, though. -- AlexR 15:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it.. comment by 138.163.0.41 -- Reminder: Anonymous votes do not count.
moved comment by User:Truthteller to talk page Project2501a 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Truthteller notes that most of those demanding it be Deleted provide no logical reasoning for doing so -- other than that it goes against their own POV. Stating it is POV or "nonsense" does NOT make it so.--66.218.59.87 04:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsupported by verifiable evidence. Kelly Martin 04:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks the bare minimum of rationality needed to make any article valid.--MWAK 08:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Greg Gasson

[edit]

Article does not establish that the subject is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Crotalus horridus 22:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shvitz

[edit]

Dictdef. ā†’IƱgōlemoā† talk 22:37, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ey up

[edit]

Dictdef, has been transwikied, no potential for improvement. ā†’IƱgōlemoā† talk 22:53, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

  • Delete now that transwikied it has no content worth keeping. RJFJR 23:48, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect (someone has done this already; I see no reason why that shouldn't stand -- moving to properly-capitalized title). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Best selling Female artist

[edit]

Merge to Mariah Carey if there's anything worthwhile. POV too. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

DJ Moosic

[edit]

Delete. Probable not notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, <4 relevant google results. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 18:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sci7071

[edit]

Advertisement for unremarkable, nonencyclopedic blog. Kelly Martin 23:36, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 17:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Lowel lane baker

[edit]

Student vanity. Article does not establish noteworthiness. Kelly Martin 23:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ā€”Xezbeth 19:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Boyd

[edit]

Delete. It may simply be an advertisement, but anyways none of the people named (Richard Boyd, Carl Fernandes, and William Forty) have a large google presence. Boyd has almost 3 million but not really relevant ones. The website itself I think tell the whole story. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Egg cup

[edit]

Page is not up to wikipedia standereds and is in "leet" speak JCS 23:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedied as patent nonsense. Not a comment on the notability of a real article on this subject. I mean, if we can keep breadbox ... RickK 23:53, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • i am a bit new are you refering to the article when you say "speedied as patent nonsense" are you refering to what i said or the article?JCS 00:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant the article. But see below. RickK 04:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was able to get a look at the history of this article just as Rick speedied it, and it looked like this was a vandalism that was never reverted. There was a real article on the subject, and someone leeted over it. -- Grev -- Talk 00:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can we get the real article back then please? Kappa 01:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pursue at VfU, if you believe it was improperly deleted. Content of the original stub was:
"An egg cup, sometimes called egg server, is a container used for serving eggs within their shell. Eggs could be either raw or hard or soft boiled. Egg cups have an upwardly concave portion to hold the egg and often include a base to raise the egg retaining portion and give stability."

Personally, I feel this content is criterion #1 in nutshell (or egg cup). On the other hand, I think there is a US College football game that is known as the Egg Cup. I'm not sure, though. Keep deleted. Geogre 03:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the non-vandalized version. Sorry about that. RickK 04:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle 10:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hairston, Jr.

[edit]

Unencyclopedic high school sports vanity. Kelly Martin 23:53, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Palestine Mandate. Sjakkalle 11:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

League of Nations Palestine Mandate

[edit]


This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_22&oldid=1234127078"