Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gwalla (talk | contribs) at 02:02, 8 July 2005 (Beefybot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

July 8

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 00:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked Cola

Another band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria--no albums. Zero hits for "Spiked Cola" west park centre', making that part unverifiable. 22 displayed hits for just "Spiked Cola", but almost all are other uses--the few that are this group are their website, the site of the person that built there website (that has since apparently removed almost all references to the group or their site), and the top hit is just a template for band info that has all fields other than the band's name blank. Niteowlneils 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)


  • Delete For the time being I think this article should be deleted, though this is not to say that this article cannot or should not be rewritten if this band achieves notability. Jtkiefer July 8, 2005 01:16 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, possible vanity, WP:MUSIC -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
  • Delete, nnanity. In addition to lack of Googles, has no presence on allmusic.com and their website has no alexa traffic data at all. The article says that their first EP is due in Autumn 2005, so this also fails owing to the use of crystal ball. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
  • Delete: No records yet (which would be self-financed), no contract, no distribution, no sales. Not notable at this time. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)
  • Delete no fame. Kokiri 8 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
  • Delete: as above
  • Delete non notable.-Poli 2005 July 8 14:47 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUISC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Randomocracy

Original research. --Tabor 8 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

  • Delete or, nn. Nothing related on google, nor have I ever heard this term in a political science context. -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
    • Nothing related on google? Suggest spell-checking search term.
  • Delete: Original research, a proposal/manifesto for someone's dorm room philosophy. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone seems to have written an unpublished book about this here in relation to some electoral reform in British Columbia. Given that it is apparently unpublished (the site is in the first person for orders etc. and Amazon don't carry it), this is WP:NOR and possibly POV given the context. Possibly also a copyvio from the book, but not able to tell. Finally, it admits to being a nelogism here: "a random word, an obvious neologism". If someone can show that it is actually an established political doctrine in British Columbia I would, of course, change my vote. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
  • I reached into a hat and randomly selected "delete" as my vote in this VfD. -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not in use anywhere as far as I can find.--Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 14:43 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Splash.-Poli 2005 July 8 14:49 (UTC)
  • Kept because I think it's an informative article. Maybe someone else should rewrite though to avoid breaking the original research rule. --FFAFRoxorzMyBoxorz 8 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
  • Delete, rewriting will not help with respect to "original research" - it is otherwise not notable outside of Wikipedia. StuartH 8 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. I've seen the concept of selecting government officeholders by lottery before (it's common enough in science fiction), but never under this name, and never with the other features specified in this article. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to something with a better title. The idea is not new but the title is. --maclean25 08:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The idea that Maclean25 is conflating this with is Sortition. This is, however, not sortition. It is an expansion of that notion to include, for starters, an economic ideology and a criticism of partisanship (two of the "other features" that Carnildo notes). The article is a reasonably clear attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a novel concept, and indeed a book. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 15:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the originator of this Wiki entry, I can tell you that although I've read the book, I have no interest whatsoever in promoting it; asserting as much without the slightest scintilla of evidence is reprehensible - a genuinely gutter act. Also, as anyone who has read their Aristotle will tell you, sortition explicity (as a theory) deals with partisanship, and Mueller, Tollison & Willet's 1972 article (Representative Democracy via Random Selection) in Public Choice embeds it in economic doctrine.Geoffrey Transom
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 01:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinkies

This is non-encyclopedic, meaningless garbage, and is more of a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

Cho nezumi

Speedied as nonsensical, didn't make any sense whatsoever and insufficient context. Fawcett5 8 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)

This is from some fiction, but I can't figure out what, and I suspect it's non-notable either within or without that fiction. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

  • Delete obscure, ill-translated fancruft. nn -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even sure this qualifies as fancruft; it may be part of someone's private fiction. No relevant hits on Google. Unverifiable. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
  • Delete: Tinfoil hattery/fantasy. The information "was researched" by trainers of beings from other worlds. Uh-huh. Would these trainers wear long white coats and carry syringes? Geogre 8 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was copyvio, already deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Zu

No clue. Abstain. ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

It seems strange to bring an article to VfD that you yourself are not going to vote to delete. If you're that unsure, it's a keep. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
People abstain all the time, you know. The point is, I couldn't verify it, but then again there's a chance it could be legitimate. Someone else might know. I'm not going to slap a delete vote on something that I don't know enough about. --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
  • Delete Minor rap group with no albums that I could find. Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Harmil, no entry on AMG. Jaxl 8 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
  • Delete: Supposedly a "crew" that did production? beats? backing? on some records. As with other things relating to that "band," it appears to be a private name for a group of people who are not known by that term anywhere else. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
  • Delete'. "Brooklyn Zu" collects 6260 Google hits, however they nearly all appear to be about a series of films by that name. The band have no allmusic.com presence and from what I can filter from Google have not generated any media interest either, nor anything else that would qualify on WP:MUSIC. If anyone wants to rewrite the article to be about the films, I'll change to keep. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
  • Delete It, along with the dozens of others just like it that have been added this evening are all copyvios. Somebody has been pasting one paragraph at a time from a website on this topic into Wikipedia.Tobycat 8 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
    • Hah! I thought so...I've been watching them pop up on Special:Recentchanges all night. Have you been catching them and slapping {{copyvio}} on them? --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Wait. Wait. While not particularly well-known, Brooklyn Zu is a legitimate rap crew affiliated with the Wu-tang clan, especially Ol' Dirty Bastard, who some persons might be interested in learning more on. While the body of the article is a copyvio as it stands, I'll work on the article myself. Same with Hell Razah, Killah Priest, and anyone else that comes along. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
Might I add, those of you who've seen my VfD contributions and votes before know that I am very zealous in pursuing deletions for non-notable groups and bandcruft. I hope that you take into account the fact that I'm voting to keep (which I seldom do on obscure bands), instead of delete (as I almost always do). jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
comment: I got it. The crew are members of Wu-Tang. It looked for all the world to me like another name for part of the band. I.e. a way for them to jokingly refer to their beats unit. Thus, it wouldn't be a separate band at all and therefore not one with records, etc. Do you have any recordings by them that aren't Wu-tang? Geogre 8 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)
That's the problem, and the one reason I suppose that they don't meet WP:MUSIC... Brooklyn Zu, as with many other groups affiliated with Wu-Tang (Streetlife, for one), have yet to put out a solo recording. They have made guest appearances on ODB's LP's (and are known as his "other" rap crwe), and - I believe - have been working on a solo mixtape. I dunno: to me, they're notable, but others may feel that they are not. I honestly feel, though, that they deserve an encyclopaedic entry (i.e. brief, to-the-point, but informative). jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
  • QuestionComment: The article as it stood was a copyvio. However, I would take it upon myself to create a better article outlining who Brooklyn Zu are. In fact, I think, the best proposal is to create an article Wu-affiliates, with all the groups like Hell Razah, Brooklyn Zu, Killah Priest, Streetlife, &c. contained therein. On their own, these rappers may not have the clout to be encyclopaedic, but I feel that a mention of the Wu-tang Clan should not go without some sort of companion article on their many colourful side projects and affiliates. jglc | t | c 01:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a question in there somewhere? RoySmith 02:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. My bad. I originally meant to ask whether you guys thought it would be a good idea to create a secondary article, but realised that, due to the nature of Wikipedia, it'd be fine to go ahead and do so on my own. I retained the incorrect label. jglc | t | c 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 01:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Web design New York

advertisement Doctor Whom 8 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

  • Delete ad. Jaxl 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. mindstream 8 July 2005 01:54 (BST)
  • Speedy Delete Title does not match content, probable copyvio (see Google) -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. Mrendo 8 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. DS1953 July 8, 2005 03:02 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete is certainly not out of bounds, as this is arguably long spam. It's not just advertising but click-me advertising. However, delete for advertising. Geogre 8 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)
  • Delete ad.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:39 (UTC)
  • Delete ad / vandalism. The contributor's IP should be blocked. See his other contributions [1] —Tokek 8 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant spam. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: 6k, 2d. -Splash 02:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbot Wang

Not significant enough for article.

  • Delete --GrandCru 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
  • Keep - found a link that suggests there is more here than meets the eye; added it to the article. I'll see what else I can dig up, but I'm convinced this person is significant enough to merit an article. -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 04:26 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412. Xoloz 8 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)
  • Move to Yuan-lu Wang, change Abbot Wang to redirect. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
    • Good point, but I've actually moved it to Wang Yuan-lu, as the naming convention in China is to put the family name first. Both Yuan-lu Wang and Abbot Wang now redirect there, and I've redirected the vfd page accordingly. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
      • Right, I knew that. My mistake. Leave moved to where it is now, and keep.--Scimitar 8 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
  • Keep where  BD2412 moved it to.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:42 (UTC)
  • Keep establishes notability. Falphin 8 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable tao-cruft. RoySmith 22:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Gerrymandering computer technology

  • Delete. Patent nonsense. See the article creators other edits and talk page for some idea of his modus operandi. Tufflaw July 8, 2005 00:53 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only nonsense, but much of it is just a cut-and-paste of an old version of United States House of Representatives -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was redirect to tetraneutron. -- BD2412 talk 19:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Tetraneutronium

Only 2 Google hits, probable hoax as neutrons do not bond together. Created by the Stop Drinking Soda vandal, in any event. Delete. Jersyko talk July 8, 2005 01:27 (UTC)

  • Delete: Seems like a prank. If not a prank, then a profoundly wishful bit of non-physics. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)
  • Very weak delete. This is a bit of personal OR pseudo-science. This points to a New Scientist article that played with the idea (you can get a free 7 day login if you're really keen; I didn't bother). What's the feelings about pseudo-science which is apparently drawn from a single source but that got an article in a 'proper' magazine (though not in an archival journal)? -Splash 8 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
  • Keep if the stated theory is supported by a reliable source. The original author of the article must have had such a source in mind when posting the article. If this optimistic confidence is unfounded, delete. -EDM 8 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
Do bear in mind, per the nomination, that it was created by a known vandal, even while assuming WP:FAITH. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
  • delete as unverifiable, since there are only 2 hits for this on google and it was created by a known vandal. Vote subject to change without prejudice given a citation. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT to neutronium, as chemical elements depend on the number of protons it has, tetraneutronium consisting solely of a tetraneutron nucleus, is obviously *not* a chemical element, but an isotope of element 0, neutronium. Alternately, redirect to tetraneutron. 67.68.67.71 8 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not OUR job to dig up cites for highly dubious, one-sentence-long articles that lack any. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 07:57 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax unless proven other way.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:45 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable because stability calculatins suggest that it would be a stable form of neutronium, that makes it VERY special. 24.19.27.32 8 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
Can you include either the calculations or a reference to them in the article? -Splash 8 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 01:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Game Screenshots

Not really suitable encyclopedia content, unless there's any particular screenshots of real significance (none I can think of hand.) byped July 8, 2005 01:35 (UTC)

  • Delete Computer and video game stub This game-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it -Harmil 8 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Screenshots" is plural, yet I only see one. Jaxl 8 July 2005 01:55 (UTC) The attempt at expansion is good, but I agree with others that this article is still POV. Jaxl 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
    • The text clearly reads "This is an article of all the best screenshot of great video games." Obviously the title is in error. Delete. — mendel ☎ July 8, 2005 13:21 (UTC)
      • No, the text is an error. The author meant to say, "This is an article of all the best screenshots of great video games. If the word was preceded by "all of the best", then that must mean there were more than one intended. If you want a better reason to delete, then I'll give one. Not encyclopedic. Jaxl 8 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, non-encyclopedic. -Splash 8 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not encyclopedic. Anomaly1 8 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
  • Delete: The Great Game is politics. The screenshots would not apply, as colonial powers arguing and warring over the division of Asia and Africa was before computers. (I.e. the name should be "Great game screenshots" not Great Game Screenshots.) As for the article on its own, it is inherently POV and therefore impossible. It is also inherently meaningless, as it proposes a pictographic article, not a discursive one. Encyclopedias live and die by discussion, not pictures. Geogre 8 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
  • Delete and a cookie to Harmil - I think we need to make that a template. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
  • Delete I think Harmil justfied the reason why best Jtkiefer July 8, 2005 02:27 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic Forbsey 8 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)
  • Delete LMAO Harmil, ditto. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 03:19 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV title, and a wikipedia article isn't a gallery of screenshots. - Mgm|(talk) July 8, 2005 08:12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic to have one persons opinion of what a great screenshot is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 8 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)
  • Delete. Image galleries can be encyclopedic content just fine. But I can't see how this title could make an article that isn't inherently POV - David Gerard 8 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. Please everyone give the user more time to expand the article and correct their errors. Maybe they accidently hit save page before they were ready. Did you even think about that maybe they were going to improve on it. Or did you just jump to immediate deletion. I say we give then more time. If the article isan't any better in three days then we can delete it. Sail max 6-22-05 8 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
  • People do tend to jump on artices to delete them, that is true. However, the VfD process lasts a full 5 days from the time of nomination. Voters can, and often do, change their vote in that period if an article is significantly revised. In practise, a VfD is often not closed for about 10 days and most admins will count all good-faith votes cast in that time — this should give the author ample time to make their case and their article. -Splash 8 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)
  • Even so, Sail max is missing the point. This is a POV article. Everyone's defintion of what a "great screenshot" is will vary. Wikipedia is not the place for articles like this. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 14:53 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I agree completely, as I said in my vote. -Splash 8 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
First off I'm not missing the point from what Nahallac Silverwinds said. I understand that this is not Wikipedia material and everyone will have diffrent opinions. So my suggestion is that if people don't like the screenshots they can come and add their own. Maybe this can be a page where everyones feelings of great screenshots can be.-Sail max 6-22-05 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
  • Delete I like the idea, unfortunatly, it is non-encyclopedic.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:51 (UTC)
  • Delete I'll repeat what someone else said- great idea, but not fit for Wikipedia. You (Talk) July 8, 2005 18:15 (UTC)
  • Delete Why is Super Mario 64 not in there? And why is Super Mario Sunshine in there? I can see edit and revert wars here. And then the page will gwt too big to accomodate evryone's tastes. Nope, POV articles will never work. And this one cn't be un-POV'd Sonic Mew July 8, 2005 19:06 (UTC)
  • Well -:Poli this actually is encyclopedia like because I sugguest other sections and give facts. Also this is a section for anybody to do what they want with their favorite screenshots.
  • Why dosen't anyone just expand the article already and stop complaning about it. Sail max 6-22-05 8 July 20:04 (UTC)
    • Because it's not encyclopedic content, but an article worthy of deletion. You might be able to make this a user sub-page, however, with your opinion of the best gameshots on the wikipedia. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
      • Yes, let's be clear here. We're not saying, "this is poorly written, so delete it." We're saying, "this is an article which, by definition, cannot be NPOV". That's perhaps a subtle difference for some, but to me it draws a clear line between candidates for deltion vs. candidates for cleanup. -Harmil 00:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some user's willing to userfy it. In the article space it's inherently POV. --Idont Havaname 20:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sail max 6-22-05 and think that this article should not be deleted. Yes this a POV but it is everyones opinion. And it is encyclopedia like because it gives facts and dates and if you don't like the article no one is forcing you to come to it.
  • Delete not encyclopedic, nothing but a screenshot gallery Jtkiefer 20:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; POV, and kind of messy too. Thunderbrand 23:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that instead of deletion, this aritcle should be changed. Change the title so it isan't a POV. Add more facts and information to the characters and the games. And make it so that it isan't just a gallery of screenshots, but like a video game character profile page. What does everyone say about that?

--Sail max 6-22-05 14:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It could be redone to use galleries instead of that god-awful mishmash of thumbs, but I just don't think the article should exist, in any form. There are already screenshot galleries for each of the major game systems, like this---and they're sort of already de facto "the best games for the system". grendel|khan 16:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TerroristProphecy

Self-promotion.

  • Delete. These guys exist but a google search shows only their own websites. Wikipedia is not a place to showcase unknown bands.csloat 8 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising of a subject that is not encyclopedic if stripped of POV. The "band" is unsigned, undistributed, unsold, etc. Nice that they're upset about the Stone Cutters, but.... Geogre 8 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
  • Delete - band nn/vanity. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. Jaxl 8 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)
  • Delete band nnanity. Only 16 unique Googles and no allmusic.com presence.-Splash 8 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)
  • Delete does not fulfill WP:MUSIC.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:55 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax/vandal page. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Hamster Language

I believe this to be a hoax article. I've asked the author for citation, but received no response. Joyous (talk) July 8, 2005 01:58 (UTC)

  • Delete. Blatant hoax. "Hamster Language is the only writing of the "philosopher" GjEffori BonnģwiŤz...Hamster Language is a document that told that hamsters were once the dominant species and were 6 feet tall." Yeah. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 02:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beefybot

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Vanity, somebody's forum handle. — Gwalla | Talk 8 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

  • Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 8 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn/vanity. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
  • Delete - a poster child for why Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/1 needs to pass. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, vanity. Forbsey 8 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry for the speedy; I knew it was a little questionable, but that's why we're freely editable. Deltabeignet 8 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forum-cruft with notability issues. jni 8 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)
  • D-E-L-E-T-E. as vanity. - Mgm|(talk) July 8, 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable.-Poli 2005 July 8 15:57 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_8&oldid=18369183"