Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 14

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jfdwolff (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 14 August 2005 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nobody But Microsoft). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Soft redirect to:Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect. 

[refresh]

2005-08-14

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laércio Beckhauser

Delete this article is in Portuguese and I'm the first to admit that my Portuguese is rusty at best and wrong at worst. However, I'm completely sure that this article derives from a textbook entry of some variety and deals with the genealogy of Johan Karl Beckhäuser. At best it's not notable and at worst it's a copyvio. Soltak 00:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is in horrible, broken English (please note the translation request box now says, "if you ploughs the person who just added this template"... tee hee). Still not very clear, but clear enough that you can tell it's not at all encyclopedic. He gets 12,000 hits in non-English languages, so he might be important. I say, delete and let someone write something new if they feel inspired. JDoorjam 00:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no concensus. I was responsible for handling that VFD back then, and considering the cirumstances I rather give the benefit of the doubt. If you wish to re-delete the article due to reasons other than undeletion/Karl-VFD reasons, please feel free to resumbit a new VFD. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neat tiling

This article was previously VfD'd.

  • The result of that VFD was delete all

So why does the article still exist?

  • It was undeleted

What were the arguments for its undeletion

So shouldn't it be speedy re-deleted?

  • Yes, but certain admins keep removing the tag

Why was it VFD'd in the first place?

  • Artificial original research classification (a "neologism")
  • The correct mathematical term is "continuous tesselation"
  • It was created by a user known as "Karl Scherer" who has several user accounts, and had been inserting his original research into Wikipedia, as well as about 60 spam pages advertising games he had created
  • Google search for the term returns only 118 results
  • Google search for the term minus "wikipedia" (to discount obvious mirrors) returns only 35 results
  • Google search for the term minus "wikipedia" and "scherer" (to

discount obvious mirrors and karl scherer's use of it) returns only 20 results

  • Of those 20 results, most use the term as in "that tiling is really neat", i.e. "impressive", and not in the way the article suggests at all
  • The one that doesn't is a spam-list of words deriving from wikipedia mirrors.
  • Comments:
  1. Delete log entry: 21:35, July 3, 2005 Mailer diablo deleted "Neat tiling" (content was: '{{User:-Ril-/Karl-Scherer-Spam}} A neat tiling is a type of tiling. A tiling {T} of a shape S is called neat if * each tile T is a poly...')
  2. Delete log entry: 19:59, August 7, 2005 Curps restored "Neat tiling"
  3. You may want to refer to User_talk:Curps#Neat_tiling and User_talk:-Ril-#Lock_puzzle.2C_etc.
  4. It seems clear that there is some sort of user conflict going on here, so I'm holding my vote until things are sorted out. -- FP <talk><edits> 01:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
then pages of type 1 above are obvious VfDs, pages of type 3 are not (generic term), while pages of type 2 are debatable: is "unsolved mystery novel" a generic term and subcategory of "mystery novel", or is it a neologism coined by the user? The point is, that's precisely the sort of thing a VfD is supposed to sort out: people research it and Google it and present their conclusions in a VfD vote. The current article in question Neat tiling seems to be of type 2 above: is it a neologism invented by Karl Scherer, or is it a generic term in general use among the puzzle-solving community? Such a VfD debate can now take place at last, on this page.

However, you presented your original Vfd in a careless way, or perhaps even a deceptive way if you had done it deliberately: you listed only pages of type 1 above in the VfD itself and buried the pages of type 2 and type 3 within a very long listing (200 articles!) on a completely separate page (never mentioning them on the VfD page itself) that most voters probably never looked at. It was just flat out wrong to lump pages of entirely different categories into one humungous VfD whose presentation incorrectly implied that all the pages to be deleted were of type 1 above (obvious deletion candidates).

This was a procedural error in the original VfD —it is questionable whether a page was duly deleted if it was never even mentioned on any VfD page. -- Curps 02:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, that WAS discussed at the VFD, thus the word "all" as opposed to "only the games". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 02:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You would have claimed a mandate to delete Burr puzzle too... you only failed to do so because you accidentally didn't notice it the first time around. The subsequent separate VfD for that page (a "keep") clearly indicated that you overreached your mandate. -- Curps 02:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. When I click on your '"neat tiling" minus Wikipedia' link above, I get 61 results, not 35. Nevertheless, it is possible that you may have a point that this could be largely a neologism proposed by Karl Scherer. Perhaps other more neutral eyes could judge this. When I did a Google search I didn't do the "minus Wikipedia" refinement. I believe you are wrong in the other cases, however (the ones that are the subject of the other VfD). -- Curps 02:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still get 35, I'm unsure why you would get 61 for clicking on the same link? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google Is Not Science (tm), nor should it be the centre of VfD. 35/61 - either way, less than 100 is 'not much internet presence'/'usually has different name'. This is a very minor factor as to whether an article is worth keeping, unless we're talking an entirely web based topic (a particular message board etc). --zippedmartin 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that this is a valid mathematical concept, and I'm sure that this is not the true mathematical term for it. Merge/redir to tesselation. Radiant_>|< 08:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Why are we even discussing this? It was an article that went through VfD, and which was recreated without going through VfU. It should be speedied immediately. --Nandesuka 12:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were procedural flaws in the VfD: this article was never mentioned by name in the VfD, so it is questionable whether it was ever properly VfD'd. -- Curps 15:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Curps, I read the VfD, and I think you're mistaken -- Neat tiling clearly appears on the list attached to the VfD, which was discussed at the time. Even if you are correct, though, the right thing to do would have been to list Neat Tiling on VfU and discuss the procedural flaws there. Instead, now we're caught in a twisty little maze of procedural violations, all different. Nandesuka 15:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, everyone was pointed to the category in the 3rd of the 3 opening paragraphs, the issue of whether all the items in the category counted as well as those in listed in the list that was "includes but isnt limited to" was discussed at length in the VFD itself, and the result was delete ALL. And it didn't go through WP:VFU so re-creating it is an abuse of process, and it should be speedy re-deleted. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nandesuka, appearing "on the list attached to the VfD" (actually, an entirely separate page) is not the same as actually appearing at the top of the VfD page itself. Many voters undoubtedly never even looked at that page, and took their cue from the writeup at the top of the VfD page itself, which, intentionally or not, only listed egregious spam pages and failed to explicitly mention pages like neat tiling or lock puzzle, etc. This was procedurally flawed: the process was biased in a way to delete pages that in many cases would have survived their own individual VfD (as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Burr puzzle and the ongoing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interlocking puzzle show). So as I've said I don't believe the original VfD validly applied to this page. But fair enough, to avoid procedural snafus I'll use VfU for such cases in the future. -- Curps 16:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the nominator believes that The correct mathematical term is "continuous tesselation" then why the VfD - just move the page and change the nomenclature in the article. --zippedmartin 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article contains totally original research - it is called "continuous tesselation" because it is "continuous" and a "tesselation", in the same way that a "red cow" is called that because it is "red" and a "cow", but that doesn't warrent the article [[red cow]] existing. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't assert something has been made up on the spot, and has a 'correct mathematical term', that's patent nonsense. To continue your daft analogy, if you were to see one of these and go round telling people the 'correct biological term' is red cow, they'd all think you'd been having too much 'energy' drink. There might be correct names for things that don't exist, but there certainly aren't correct names for things that haven't been thought of. But seeing as people have been tessellating for thousands of years, I doubt very much whether this definition was first used by a C20 puzzler. Ask for deletion on grounds of notability by all means, but strike 'original research' and your speculation over the naming because you're misrepresenting the case. --zippedmartin 01:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's the artificial classification that is made up. In the same way that classifying cows by colour was made up on the spot. Ununhexium is just latin for 116, it's not a name, its a placeholding definition, and the correct biological term for this is more likely to be bos rufus [although it isn't that either]. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then you agree that the sentence you meant to write at the top of the article was "Term is a neologism, the concept might be considered a form of continuous tesselation"? --zippedmartin 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am disappointed that this article was restored without going through VfU. I would like to offer that it is essential at this juncture to seperate how one feels about the breaches in procedure from the merits of the article in question. I need to do some research before voting so for now I abstain. Tobycat (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:40
Would you supply your reasoning please. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've gone through most of the non-WP Google links in a bit of detail, and found no evidence that neat and nowhere-neat have been used in this sense by anyone but Mr Scherer. Hv 09:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But is it an invented term for an existing concept, is the question... --zippedmartin 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is "Yes". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that this isn't original research, and want to change your delete vote to merge-with-tessilation or similar? --zippedmartin 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, and imediately list on VfU, if needed to take care of whether or not it should have been deleted, at which point it could be brought here instantly as well. Failing that, Delete as a non-notable term for a phenomena. --Icelight 00:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am disturbed that non-mathematicians are styling themselves as capable judges of mathematical articles. I'd much prefer to see "the usual crowd" debating the article; I don't recognize any of the people above as having ever contributed to a math or physics article; as far as I know, none have any "bona fides". Please, if you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, don't vote. And, by the way, using google for math research is a really really bad idea, since 99.999% of all math is not indexed in google. linas 23:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I am sufficiently familiar with mathematics to make a knowledgable judgement. I choose not to contribute to mathematics articles because I have no interest, not because I have no competance. I could, for example, demonstrate proficiency in Conformal mappings, holomorphisms, klien bottles, christoffel tensors, laplace transformations, bernoulli numbers, contour integration, riemann surface, etc. but I don't find it interesting, so I don't bother. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to edge-to-edge tiling or merge into tessellation. Grünbaum and Shephard, Tilings and Patterns, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1987, which I consider the most authorative references on the mathematical theory of tilings, defines edge-to-edge tilings on page 18. This addresses Ril's concern that neat tiling is a neologism. I don't care that much about the other concern, that it was undeleted improperly: our goal is to write an encyclopeadia. I could not find neat tiling nor continuous tessellation in either MathSciNet or the book, so I'm curious where Ril got this term from. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sometimes different groups use different jargon for the same thing. What most of the world calls GMT or UTC, the US military calls "Zulu time". It's possible that puzzle hobbyists use a different term than mathematicians, which could be solved by using redirects. "Edge-to-edge tiling" gets about 60 Google hits (none with "Scherer" or "Wikipedia" in them. -- Curps 15:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- The concept may deserve insertion into tessellation, but I doubt very much that the name is used by anyone other than the original poster. (And I am a mathematician.) -- Arthur Rubin 22:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons. Firstly, it was deleted in accordance with a vote on VfD. I'm as unhappy about the mass listing on VfD as other people are, but since it's clear that there's no clear consensus, we should follow policy and take it to VfU first. (In fact, it would be nice if some admin (Curps?) could go through Ril's list from the mass deletion—I'd like to acknowledge -Ril- for making the list available, since it's been helpful in the ensuing discussion—and look for other articles which aren't the Zillions spam they were accused of being, to list on VfU.)
Secondly, the article is no more than a definition and consensus seems to be that the most standard terminology is not neat tilings but edge-to-edge tilings for which we have a standard reference (Grünbaum and Shephard). (By consensus I mean both Jitse Niesen, above, and Joseph Myers in Talk:Tiling#Terminology.) It doesn't seem that we'd lose a great deal by deleting the article. When we have an article on edge-to-edge tilings, then we can put in a redirect—because I'm sure I have seen the term neat tilings in a recreational mathematics book, and besides, redirects are cheap. —Blotwell 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy, it had Already been deleted as non-notable biography: [1].

Pronsias Radcliffe


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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

On a Sensual Note

Delete: this is a band vanity page that doesn't approach any of the guidelines for notability. JDoorjam 00:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 04:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Manlike Woman the Indian prophetess of the Upper Columbia River

Nominating for deletion because it's non-notable. While doing a Google litmus test, I actually happened upon the blog of the article's author, where she said she wrote the article in order to increase the notability of the Manlike Woman, who she says "barely qualifies as a footnote in history." -D. Wu 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Does this qualify as some form of vanity? Good work, Uppland. Now this is how to convince the community to keep seemingly pointless articles. A lesson to all you inclusionists. / Peter Isotalo 02:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. -- BD2412 talk 03:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kaúxuma Núpika, the name mentioned in the author's blog, got 14 google hits, and the title a whopping 38. It is interesting though, the amount of info gathered on someone's whose only claim is being a transexual, and being mentioned by afew tribes people to be considered a prophetess. Maybe a sentence mentioned somewhere in a related topic about that time and area would be fitting. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Change vote to keep due to evidence of notability. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 20:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and interesting. Wikipedia is not paper. Pburka 03:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Its both of those things, but still not notable. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 05:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly, but move to Kaúxuma Núpika. Transexual Native American prophet(ess) influential in the native population of British Columbia in the early 19th century. How many of those do we have? Would I be wrong to assume that a verifiable transexual prophetess influential in the white population in Massachusetts at the same time would have been kept without discussion? Google hits are a help, not a definite measurement of significance, and it is expected that fewer written sources exist for native American topics. She is apparently mentioned in this book on Amazon, the Biographical Dictionary of American Indian History to 1900. A JSTOR search results in a couple of articles mentioning her, one of which, "'The Natives Were Strong to Live': Reinterpreting Early-Nineteenth-Century Prophetic Movements in the Columbia Plateau", by Elizabeth Vibert, in Ethnohistory 1995, does so quite extensively, citing the same sources our article here does. Uppland 05:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: It seems using Western terms such as transexual is less appropriate, as this was not an entirely unusual type of gender role in Native American cultures, and there is a Wikipedia article on the topic: Two-Spirit; it has been refered to as "berdache" by some academics, although that is apparently considered offensive. Two-Spirit lists among its references another journal paper, which turns out to be entirely devoted to this woman: Claude E. Schaeffer, "The Kutenai Female Berdache: Courier, Guide, Prophetess, and Warrior", in Ethnohistory 1965, pp 193-236. Schaeffer writes among other things that she is "mentioned in the writings of Gabriel Franchère, Alexander Ross, Washington Irving, David Thompson, John Work, Sir John Franklin, the explorer, and W. H. Gray, the missionary. All of these men, except Irving and Franklin, knew her personally. Several modern students of Northwest history, who noted references to the Kutenai berdache in the literary accounts, have assempled data on certain events of her unusual career." He goes on to cite a number of 20th century authors who have written about her. Uppland 07:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be important to identify just how Kutenai construct sexuality and what westerners would call transsexuality/transgenderism. Every Native group does so differently. "Berdache" (being a western term, anyway) and "two-spirit" (a term used by one particular group whose name escapes me and since generalized) probably don't cut it particularly well and the tribe's own designation would be preferable. - Montréalais 15:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I am not really familiar with the subject areas, neither with gender studies nor with Native American cultures; it would obviously be preferably if somebody who had at least half a clue would look at the articles I mentioned above (and possibly others I haven't found in my quick raid on JSTOR) and do something with this article. BTW, we have a three-and-a-half line article on Kootenai (tribe) and a two-line article on the Kootenai language - not exactly one of Wikipedia's stronger points... --Uppland 16:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and rename as per Uppland. Well done to him for his research. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and rename. A. J. Luxton 11:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Uppland. --Apyule 11:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per Uppland. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Uppland --Mysidia (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice research job. Needs major cleanup and a title move, but keep. Bearcat 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Being unusual is not the same as being notable. This is an obscure historical figure of no importance to history. I might even agree that she "deserves to be more than a footnote in history" but she's not, and an enclopedia is not the place to start changing that. "Would I be wrong to assume that a verifiable transexual prophetess influential in the white population in Massachusetts at the same time would have been kept without discussion?" Probably so, because only three of the men and women executed as witches in Massachusetts at the same time have their own articles, and everyone knows about them. Moreover, the whole point of the article is that she was not influential. She was disliked, mistrusted, sent packing, and not mourned when she died; if you want to right those wrongs, write a book. --Tysto 23:28, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
    • Screw it. keep her. I just looked at my list of Dumbest Articles on Wikipedia, and this doesn't even scratch the surface of those dozens of idiotic cartoon robot Gundam articles. --Tysto 23:39, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:41
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xarit

Non-english dicdef -- FP <talk><edits> 01:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's already there. -- FP <talk><edits> 02:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
LOL that was quick. Kappa 02:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:) -- FP <talk><edits> 02:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Female and Male Assertiveness

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 04:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ronald Edsforth

This was tagged by someone else for speedy deletion but saying that he is a Dartmouth professor could be taken as an assertion of importance of significance, so I'm listing it here instead. No vote. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. I'd ask the author but it's an anonymous IP with no other postings, so I doubt this one will get much counter-argument.... JDoorjam 03:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did a bit of research and have added some more info. Pburka 03:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll say weak keep after rewrite; it looks much better now. Google hits were limited, though. Jaxl | talk 03:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Four books under his belt make him more notable than the average professor. -- BD2412 talk 03:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, only four books for an academic who does any quantity of research is pretty average output. This alone shouldn't be judgement of notability, there will be thousands of similar. --zippedmartin 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they are published there's a pretty large propability that people have read them. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 04:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
By no means. In fact, if the only sales are as a set text on a course he teaches at his uni, you can pretty much guarentee no one has gone cover to cover. Having said that, the amazon page for his most recent one is pretty flash, even if the sales rank is measly compared to fiction - dunno what a 'good seller' would be in the context of US academia. --zippedmartin 12:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In US academia, 5,000 books sold is considered a success. 20,000 sold is considered a blockbuster, according to my professors. That's for sociology, of course, things may be different for history or other fields. Hooper_X
Interesting. Now, if only there was somewhere with the numbers... --zippedmartin 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:43
  • Comment I refer voters here to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch, another academic who has published four books, the most recent of which has a near identical Amazon sales rank as Edsforth's most recent. --zippedmartin 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A high Amazon sales rank is important for the notability of a work aimed at popularity, but a low sales rank is completely irrelevant for the significance of academic publications. And as I pointed out in the other discussion, Gotch was clearly not an academic in the sense Edsforth is, and his books appear to have no scientific value; three of them, with almost identical titles, were popular books on the Latin names of animals, and one of these was deemed "virtually useless" by a reviewer in an academic journal. Uppland 15:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no assertion of critical importance of Edsforth's work in his article, if there were I agree that sales would be far less relevant. I suggest that without some assesment of an academic's work, there's no reason they should be given an easier ride on the sales front than a writer of popular fiction - university press is only one step from vanity press. You did a good job on digging up a review of Gotch's book, presumably some journal somewhere that will say Class Conflict and Cultural Consensus: The Making of a Mass Consumer Society in Flint, Michigan is notable despite miserable sales compared to Roger & Me or other popularist work. --zippedmartin 18:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 3 to keep, 3 to delete (including the nominator). -- BD2412 talk 04:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Guido (jazz band)

NN band vanity. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 01:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle milk

Product promotion (aka spam) Denni☯ 02:55, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Alldis

Article was nominated for speedy, but there is a clear claim of notability (one of the fastest race walkers in Australia) and it is easily verifiable ([2] for instance). No vote from me at this time. Pburka 02:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Michigan State University. -Splash 06:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accafellas

Delete: {{NNBV}}. Music group that does not meet the requirements for notability. JDoorjam 03:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poccia

Rather blatant hoax by two anons with similar IP addresses whose only other edits are racially offensive vandalism. Yelyos 03:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't log in yet, mostly due to the fact that I'm not obsessed with/center my life around Wikipedia. This is a very offensive word used at my university, and I want people to know it around the world. DrkLrdBill 03:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The word Poccia is a mid-western term that is used to describe a very lethargic individual. I am offended that Yelyos thinks it is a hoax. Reinman316 03:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

These are this user's first and second edits respectivly. See contributions. Sasquatch讲看 03:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poccia is a fairly common surname. I can't find any evidence that it's used as a slur. Pburka 03:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After a quick googling, nothing comes up, WP:V applies here. Sasquatch讲看 03:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. I don't know what idiot would talk about a Poccia on his website. There would be no reason that Poccia would be found on google. Also, do you live in the mid-west? are you a college student? How do you know that when I see someone not doing their work i DONT say, hey, quit being a Poccia and stop playing video games. Reinman316 03:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is, you need to prove it somehow... again, see WP:V. As far as we can tell, its just a common name based on Google hits. And as it's not in any dictionary, we can't verify this information... Therein lies the problem with this article. Sasquatch讲看 03:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Human rights abuses by Hong Kong police

'Delete Merge with Hong Kong Police after removing POV material':Is not NPOV-Simply a vendetta against the Hong Kong Police and a promotion of the user's Political agenda. --Gpyoung talk 03:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Delete: The information it contains is so well-documented, and many of the case had even gone through legal process. If you disagree with those external information source, and simply think these NGOs (or I) have a political agenda, show your evidence.--RageAgainstWhiteWash 03:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair to say that there are two (or more) sides to this and every story, and this article only addresses one of them. Yes, I will agree that there is evidence of abuse by the HK police, but I am sure that it is contested. I dont think you will disagree that it is a blatantly one sided article which is clearly opposed to the HK police. If you have evidence concerning this topic, try and present it in a neutral fashion. I suggest that you create a section on the Hong Kong police article entitled "Alleged human rights abuses by the Hong Kong police" and quote Amnesty International and the other organizations that criticize the HK police there. Please see WP:NPOV for more information on writing in the neutral point of view.
Comment I tried to see this article, but RageAgainstWhiteWash, had vandalized the page. Do you guys think an Rfc is needed? Alot of work has gone into this, and it should be saved in a Merge into Hong Kong Police Force, but the POV is unacceptable, and I think Rage's behavior is as well. However, he's a newbie, so i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he eschews future confrontational behavior. Karmafist 15:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree. I have tried to talk to this user about merging the article, but they do not seem to see how a POV artcle is unacceptable, I do think they even see this as POV (keeps saying sbuse is "well documented"). I think since the user put in so much work, we should try to add a section to Hong Kong Police entitled "Alleged Human Rights Abuses" with the content (re-written of course) from this article. I have changed my vote to merge. --Gpyoung talk 18:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too large a subject to be merged with Hong kong police. Sarcelles 13:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does need some cleaning up and de-POVing, but besides that its a perfectly legit article as long as everything in their is true, and if there are things you have evidence of being false, delete them from the article, don't delete the whole article. If it is not large enough after being de-POV'd, then Merge, but right now it is too large to merge. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 21:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That it's true does not make it worthy for inclusion in wikipedia. By presenting only one side of the story as per commentors above, this article is definitely POV. (Even though the information may be truthful.) -Hmib 04:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So we must present the story of the officers involved in the violations; we have articles for human rights violations in Iraq, Sudan, Guinea, and a bunch of other places. This is on a much smaller scale, but that should just mean it is easier to present both sides. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 05:10, August 15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

doors (novel)

Not notable, I couldn't find a novel matching this description. Also, it reads more like a school essay than an encyclopedia entry. Graham 03:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 talk 03:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. First-person non-NPOV book report. JDoorjam 03:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above arguments. Hamster Sandwich 08:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An update! Using what links here, I found the novel that this article is referring to is by Evan Hunter, writing as Ezra Hannon. The author is undeniably notable, but I don't think the book is. While I don't know how reliable the google test is in this case, a search for "dorrs+Ezra Hannon" only gets | 673 google hits, and I could not find much with that search that would assist me in expanding the article. However, I've removed a few of the pov statements, and added author information. The article looks much better now, but I still say delete as the book is not notable enough. Then again, I haven't read it. Graham 12:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Parker

Just another software developer/blogger. Name gets a lot of hits, but many are other people, including a Rutger Hauer film character. His blog site has an Alexa ranking of 3,738,292. I'd suggest userfying, but it was created by an anon. Possibly a speedy candidate for lack of assertion of notability. Niteowlneils 03:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that it's an orphan is a bad sign. Niteowlneils 03:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 05:39:46, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Yohannan

Vanity, non-notable. Rmhermen 04:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 05:43:11, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skunkabilly

I am a devoted fan of punk, ska, and rockabilly, and there are indeed many bands that mix these styles, but I have never heard any of them refer to themselves as "skunkabilly." The original page was clearly a joke, containing bizarre rules for how you can be included in this genre ("following Hammurabi's Code," for example), and I nominated it for speedy deletion. However, this suggestion was shot down based on the fact that the term has many Google hits. But googling for this shows no results for an actual genre of music - all the hits seem to be usernames on message boards. The closest I can find is a non-notable indie record label called "Skunkabilly Records," which signs ska, punk, and rockabilly bands, but never refers to the music as "skunkabilly." I removed the joke bits from the article, but that still doesn't make it an actual punk subgenre.

If webcest, a term people actually use, can be considered non-Wikipedia-worthy, I don't think a term *no one* uses should be allowed. Inanechild 19:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot to link it to the deletion main page. Inanechild 04:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzforums

First-person account verging on advertising for non-notable forum with 51 unique Google hits and an alexa ranking of 366,932. Zoe 04:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I typed the article, feel free to change it if you like, I didn't mean for it to be an advertisement. 3: 25 14 August 2005 (UTC)--zhanster

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Midge Ure. Clearly not deleting, and clearly redirecting among the non-deleting votes. -Splash 06:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheridan Ure

Three Google hits, all of which are from Wikipedia content.

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate question: have you ever heard of this person or can you find anything about them in a citable reference that would make them notable? The burden of proof of notability is on the article. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard of this person. It is very difficult to "prove" notability. It's not as if there is a clear line for some things. --Apyule 02:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it can be difficult to "prove" notability in a borderline case, but most people would be willing to agree that someone is notable if an article can cite references from trustworthy sources. "I've heard of her" doesn't jibe with WP:CITE and WP:V. Surely you can understand that one person saying "I've heard of her" doesn't make someone worthy of inclusion. I'm sure we've all heard of plenty of non-notable people. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any confusion. I only said that I have heard of her in direct response to your question. It does not in itself make her important. --Apyule 09:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 03:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Nitke

No-name photographer who filed a federal lawsuit and lost - big deal. Non-notable and a vanity page. --BrownHornet21 04:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes below this line merged from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barabara Nitke -Splash 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.--Exir KamalabadiCriticism is welcomed! 12:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The entry is extensive and detailed, but still self-promotion of an utterly insignificant figure. Dottore So 16:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, really. Losing a court case doesn't increase one's notability. Hell, winning it rarely does either. -Splash 16:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Perhaps in needs merging with something else. Hers was /is a significant case in an evolving area of law (at least in the US). -Zandr 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 8200 google hits, and 10 news.google hits indicate notability. Her notable lawsuit makes her notable.
  • RESPONSE. What's so notable about the suit? It's not the first lawsuit to challenge the CDA, not even among the first. The entry is merely an extensive vanity page. Google hits are irrelevant.--BrownHornet21 20:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The case received national press coverage. IMO, that estalishes notability. Pburka 20:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (crossed out after merge to avoid duplicate vote, original keep vote is above). Comment I'm not sure what happened with this listing but there seems to be two entries somehow, or something, you'll find other keep votes here:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barbara Nitke including my first. Wikipedia is not paper, and this photographer is much more notable than some other artists that are documented here (Michael Paul Oman-Reagan, Vincent Clervi and much much more). Being in such a particular field and having art exhibitions satisfies notability as an artist, regardless of the court case. --TheMidnighters 22:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the two listings is that this entry (listed on vfd) is misspelled as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barabara Nitke, and the entry linked from the article is spelled correctly. --TheMidnighters 22:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged them. Could you please strike one or the other of your votes? Thanks. -Splash 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well-written article. The lawsuit raises important contemporary issues. I am inclined to vote keep, but will first try my informal test: I'm going to look her up in an online database, to which I have access courtesy of my local public library, that contains the full content of The New York Times. If she is mentioned, I will vote keep. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. New York Times, July 28, 2005, p. 3, "An Online Artist Challenges Obscenity Law." She has had pictures in shows that have gotten brief news-item notices in The New York Times: September 5, 2003 p. 30, ""BOYS OF SUMMER," ClampArt... Standing out among the crowd of pictures by more than two dozen photographers ... men in leather, by Barbara Nitke...".I don't know whether it's the same person or not, but there have also been pictures published in The New York Times that have been credited to someone named Barbara Nitke, e.g. "Photo: Moira, left, with her dogs, Roxy and Tooter, on the documentary series 'Showdog Moms & Dads.' (Photo by Barbara Nitke/Bravo)", March 30, 2005, p. 3. Finally, I don't accept the "professor test," but she is a professor, and being president of the Camera Club of New York together with the other things would seem to make her clearly more notable than the average professor. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, two mentions in The Boston Globe. January 9, 2004, p. 3 is the Go! column which mentions "the Fetish Fair Fleamarket... starts tonight with a reading and slide show from author Barbara Nitke, who will be discussing and showing images from her book 'Kiss of Fire'" Another is a CD whose cover picture was "taken by the controversial Mapplethorpian S&M photographer Barbara Nitke." That seems to demonstrate some degree of notability. (Where is the Watch & Ward Society when you really need it?) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's well known in photography circles, and her loss in this lawsuit was big news in censorship circles because it was a severe undercut to Miller v. California 413 U.S. 12 (1973) and created a bizarre burden of proof standard for chilling speech. She is well-known in the SM and erotic photography circles. Jessamyn 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above posters. Hooper_X
  • Keep This photographer is well known and the lawsuit got a lot of press. 68.20.179.193
  • Keep Much work. Notable. --Vaergoth 08:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If only for the photography, which is well known and widely appreciated. The lawsuit is an interesting sidenote. --Outlander 15:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Not only highly notable both legally and artistically, but an extremely well written article IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:15, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

\x01a4

Looks like an esoteric C programming language reference to something in culture. I think it is too specialized and does not really merit an encyclopedia article, it's almost a bad joke... --Mysidia (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 06:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons TV ads and identical List of The Simpsons television advertisements

Utter Springfieldcruft (and I say this as a huge Simpsons fan). tregoweth 05:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 02:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter RPGs

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poké Battles

Freeform RPG/fanfic cruft. This could easily be replaced with a redirect to message board role-playing game or fanfiction with no loss of useful information whatsoever. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JnanaBase

Article on an unremarkable website that does not meet the 500 user threshold. Article written by founder of website. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 04:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Candee Jay

Non notable Werdna648

Keep Lots of Google hits. I see videos and ringtones. Artist with genuine recording deal. Notable enough for inclusion. --Lomedae 13:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. unenc, nn, vanity, WP is not a message board. --DrTorstenHenning 16:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the stub a good POV-ectomy and and should be agreeable to most now. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep in recognition of the work of Fernando Rizo. --DrTorstenHenning 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:51

Apparently a UK thing. Changing my vote to keep in light of the changes -- seemed like a vanity before. --Werdna648 07:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-administrator's noticeboard

Created and solely used by -Ril- (talk · contribs), this is a place where non-admins should be able to discuss issues with and inappropriate behavior from admins. As such it is entirely redundant with WP:AN, WP:RFC and the village pump, and we really don't need another page such as this. Radiant_>|< 08:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Erwin Walsh
  • Delete - unilateral creation by -Ril-, totaly redundant (and I'm not an admin, so I've no axe to grind here) --Doc (?) 12:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An attempt to apply a thin veneer of respectability to Ril's complaints. --Calton | Talk 14:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the purpose of this page is purely destructive. Why would you make a page to discuss your problems with people and then ask them not to edit? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:19, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Delete, vindcitiveness is best kept in one place. -Splash 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the board isn't for my complaints. If you read it you will see that I haven't used it for that purpose once. I note that of the 4 editors voting delete above, 4 are people who have engaged with me before, particularly concerning the noteworthyness of individual Bible verses. It would be nice if people voting weren't those with an axe to grind against me. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, -Ril- this is just getting plain silly - stop trying to pick fights - and don't come with the self-righteous paranoia. I, for one, have better things to do with my time that persecute you. But this is a community - and unilateral actions, crusades, and attempts at management will always be unwelcome. When the whole world seems to be against you, then perhaps it is time to take the hint and consider your own position. Enough, just stop it, please. --Doc (?) 16:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This really has nothing to do with "the whole world seems to be against [me]", I had been thinking about this for ages. Admittedly the timing wasn't so well planned, but sometimes ideas just bug you so much that you need to put them onto paper. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT paper! :) Splash 01:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you read that clause it specifically points out that by not being paper, there is no need to worry about how much space is occupied, or partial redundancy, etc, so that supports my argument, rather than yours. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And if you had read my comment in conjuction with yours, you'd have realised it was a joke. A joke. Not wikilawyering and ruleswhining, but a joke. Not a funny one, evidently. -Splash 16:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase Erwin Walsh: why? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are already quite a few places to complain about bad admin conduct (as you yourself know, having exercised that ability many times). This merely promotes pointless sectarianism and gameplay instead of co-operation and conciliation. Slac speak up! 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous arguments. Hamster Sandwich 01:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it looks like this will be another case of tyranny of the majority. Wouldn't it be nice if things were decided in Wikipedia through consensus decision-making, per Wikipedia policy, which would insure that "meeting everyone’s needs" is the rule, rather than tyranny of the majority, where the minority is told to go take a hike?--172.197.4.144 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am increasingly sick of these efforts to use the deletion process to shut down alternatives. I doubt if this page can go anywhere, but it should be given time to show its potential (or lack thereof). The page certainly is not interfering with other Wikipedia processes, redundant though it may be. -- Visviva 06:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By being redundant, it is interfering with existing process. If there are two redundant processes, then any interested party must watch both, and new users may end up confused, and people may end up not noticing an event because they were looking at the wrong page. This is a bad thing. Also you should take into account the WP:RFAr against -Ril- and the suggestion that creating this page may have been a simple way to make a WP:POINT. Look at the issue, not the principle. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • The purpose is to "discuss administrators"?! This may have something to do with Ril's recent RFC against Uninvited Company and his ongoing arbitration case involving me and some other admins. This sounds like Witkacy's Black Book to me, and I don't like it one bit. The funny thing is that non-admins, indeed Ril himself, frequently comment on the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to vote here because of the arbcom case, but it is obvious to me that Ril's disruption is getting worse, not better. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
No, this has nothing to do with the RFC against UninvitedCompany or you, the timing is purely co-incidental. The page was planned for the last month. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... right... oops...? Dmcdevit·t 20:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Per my vote tally (laid out in detail on the talk page) post rewrite total (which I gave greater weight) = 93 keep, 21 delete; grand total = 103 keep, 53 delete. Either way, a fairly solid keep. -- BD2412 talk 06:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Kane

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

BBC official statement [3]: Jamie Kane Wikipedia Entries: To clarify the confusion about Jamie Kane biographical entries appearing on Wikipedia: The first posting was simply a case of a fan of the game getting into the spirit of alternative reality a little too much. The follow up posting was made by a fan of the game who happens to work in the BBC (where we've been beta-testing for the last month). This was unauthorized and made without the knowledge of anyone in the Jamie Kane Team or BBC Marketing. To confirm: the BBC would never use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. We hope you enjoy the game:-) Team Jamie

As a side issue: how on earth would "the BBC" (more exactly, "Team Jamie") know who made the initial entry? Have they provided a source for their reassurance upon this point? Most reputable news organizations are expected to verify facts with two independent sources. Are we expected to take them at their word simply because they are the BBC? Unless we've divulged our IP logs to them - which we certainly should not have done - they are in no position to state anything whatsoever about the identity of the person who created the first article - except perhaps that no one on "Team Jamie" admits to it. - Nunh-huh 04:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seem like a pedant here, but MattC did not originally create this article, only the Boy*d Upp one. - Aya 42 T C 01:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The original creator of these pages was Jon Hawk, who still hasn't explained his purpose in adding fake material to Wikipedia. --William Pietri 04:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the first revision of the article (supposedly created by Jon_Hawk) did contain a weak note (bottom of the page) about this being a fictional page. While the original article was bad in most (or all) aspects, I do not believe it was done as part of an advertising campaign - more likely a person who is familiar with the game and conceived the fictional character as notable created the article in much the same spirit as most "StarTrek", "Doom" or "Halo" articles which treat the material as a matter of fact and only weakly note their fictional nature. 62.90.49.87 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What note are you talking about? As far as I can tell, Jon_Hawk's material was all fake presented as real. Somebody else added a note at the bottom, but not until it was tagged as disputed.--William Pietri 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign. --Barberio 08:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boy*d Upp - Aya 42 T C 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retracting my original support of Deletion, and switching to Keep (of this article alone, not Boy*d Upp) since it now describes the game, not the character. And since this was not an attempt at advertising. --Barberio 12:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from registered users

  • Delete It's a marketing ploy. Doesn't belong here. --Peripathetic
  • Delete See the BoingBoing article on these entries. [4] --Barberio 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional character. Kappa 08:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, this is not a major or notable fictional character, and the articles intent is to promote a new work of fiction, not record an established one. --Barberio 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any fictional character featured prominently in a major campaign by the BBC is notable. The article was created with the intent to promote something, but it has an "edit" button. Kappa 09:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Minus the advertising, the article is meaningless and does not provide any information of note. Since the article does not stand on its own, and is an attempt at advertising, it meets Deletion requirments. --Barberio 09:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as above. --Stereo 09:01:36, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • DELETE: Speedy deletion. If we let advertising campaigns poison Wikipedia, we might as well shut the place down. Krisjohn 09:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, emphasize it is advertising. Ad campaigns should be documented as such, especially if taking viral form, as an early disclosure to make misleading of the public with fictional "real" stuff a bit more difficult. --Shaddack 09:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. When suitably marked as "fictional : accuracy disputed", and re-written to explain the fictional use, this (a) shows how fast, intelligently and effectively Wikipedia can respond to such silly marketing tricks and remain on higher ground, by simply exposing the truth rather than getting caught up in silly games. Also, (b) it largely destroys (or at least, can be written to counter) the viral marketing goals, if that is indeed why it was created. In this sense, it can be used to explain to the exact demographic who are being taken in by the fictional game, why this conflicts with the goals of Wikipedia. Lastly (c), if other marketers see the above process, and realise playing tricks with wikipedia will run a high risk of damaging their brand, rather than creating a "cool, viral" edge, then they will be less likely to abuse it in the future. mintywalker 10:54, 14 August 2005 (BST)
    • I disagree. Keeping the article purely to point out that its fictional viral marketing and how evil it is would be a POV, and go against the principles of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge, not a source of comentary. The best thing is to simply remove viral marketing as it appears. It should be noted that keeping the marketing, but noting it as marketing, does not reduce the marketing impact. Infact, this whole debate simply gains more 'eyes' on the BBC which was the intent. So I feel it should be quickly directed to a deletion. --Barberio 10:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • a) seems weak to me. We'd have to explain that was the intention. Then it's an article about viral marketing, not this dork.
  • Delete. Keeping it is not a particularly intelligent response to a marketing ploy. / Peter Isotalo 10:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Is faintly notable, apparently, and NPOV-able. Sandstein 10:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Article has become notable, because its an atempt to use Wikipedia for viral marketing, but the contents are not notable information. The bar should be kept very high on what is notable for a fictional character to be recorded, Homer Simpson is a notable fictional character, Jamie Kane is not --Barberio 10:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the abstract, I concur with Barberio, although the bar need not be very high (Wikipedia is not paper). But maybe this page (or the associated "band" below) could serve as a declared example of viral marketing in Wikipedia itself. Also, if this gets actually popular in the real world, the page would have to be recreated. Sandstein 10:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Qwghlm 11:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for viral marketing. GraemeL 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GraemeL hits it on the head.k Nandesuka 12:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Viral marketing. --Spliced 13:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Genuine good-faith fancraft has a place in Wikipedia because it does no harm if researched to encyclopedic standards. Tolerating the use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, even when the article contributor has no direct connection to the promoter, does real harm to Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marketing has no place in wikipedia. Pahalial 13:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. --*drew 14:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Boy*d Upp, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 14:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. -- WormRunner | Talk 15:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleete --Ben Houston 15:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a bald faced abuse of WIkipedia for advertising. Nothing about the article is notable except that it exists here, making the "keep" logic circular. Lastly, we invite more and more of this we we do not delete this. I'd hate to see Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia become Wikipedia: The Free Viral Marketing Test Site. Tobycat (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Misuse of Wikipedia. This is just spamvertising in a different form. android79 16:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep given Uncle G's excellent rewrite. android79 12:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps it can be added back after the game is finished for historical reasons. (see end of page)70.49.185.60 16:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but the game may warrant a genuine article if it doesn't flop; it's an unusual thing for the BBC to have created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mholland (talk • contribs) 2005-08-14 16:18:14 UTC
  • Delete - If somebody were to turn this into a page about the game Jamie Kane rather than the fictional person Jamie Kane, I'd probably change my vote. Especially if the article explains that the BBC, as part of a marketing campaign, was involved in putting fradulent material in Wikipedia. --William Pietri 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ugh. fuzzie 16:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I like Barberio's suggestion. Malcolm Farmer 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To appease the people who want to keep, can I suggest that we redirect this, and any other attempts at Viral Marketing to the Viral marketing article. Or a new meta article 'Abuses of Wikipedia for Viral Marketing'. --Barberio 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Redirecting would not clarify anything for users. Someone who looks up Jamie Kane thinking he is a real person should find a straightforward explanation of his fictionality, not be required to infer from a mysterious redirect that maybe they've been duped.Craigbutz 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cleaned up the article to make it more clear that it's fictional for the interim, just to make things nice until it's fully zapped, but I agree that not to come down hard on this invites further abuse. In fact, I have no idea how to go about doing this, but I think we need to nominate advertising spam such as this to be a criteria for speedy deletion. — WCityMike (T | C) 17:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and block the offender indefinitely, including the IP address space of the BBC, until a formal apology is made. This is nothing more or less than vandalism for profit. Wikipedia should come down hard on those responsible. --FOo 17:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable advertising. If and only if this viral marketing campaign becomes notable in and of itself (like, for example, I love bees or The Subservient Chicken) give it an article. As it stands now, it is a misuse of Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Uncle G's fine edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely non-notable in and of itself. Ironically, the only arguable reason it may have become notable (in the last TWO DAYS OF ITS EXISTENCE) has been its linking with Wikipedia, riding on Wikipedia's coattails. Avoid self-reference. D. G. 17:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Possibly redirect to the article on the BBC's game that this character is from, if such an article exists... though my vindictive streak would love to get back at the Beeb by blackballing info on the game. Dayv 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If and when this actually becomes more notable than "The Famous Teddy Z", reconsider. Ordinarily I would lean the other way, following the principle that "even a notable hoax is notable," but in this case I think a message needs to be sent that Wikipedia is not to bee abused in this way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Corporations should be prohibitted from taking advtange of a publicly administered infospace. Adam Schwabe 18:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC) ;
  • Delete. Agree with comments just above: even if a hoax, it is surely becoming notable - however, a message does need to be sent, and if this article is resurrected in an honest manner, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. As it stands, we can't allow Wiki to become a marketing tool. --Coolhappysteve
  • Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill viral marketing incident, it did not achieve notability. Don't delete it to "send a message"; delete it because it's not noteworthy. -- Curps 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Noisy | Talk 19:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.  Grue  19:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; already mentioned in viral marketing; perhaps redirect to there. Would never, ever have heard of any of this if it weren't for the fuss over it being on Wikipedia. Agree with Curps and FOo. If BBC wants a Wiki on this figment so badly, they can make their own. Oboreruhito 19:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Alterego 21:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the guerrilla marketing aspects have been explained. Zoe 21:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)Since several users keep deleting the viral marketing aspects, this makes the article no longer notable. Delete. Zoe 23:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect the current article to Boy*d Upp. If the character becomes truly famous then he can have his own article, until then I see no need. Thryduulf 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Vote superceded - see new vote below re-write marker[reply]
    • Actually, that's the reverse of the way that I suggest handling this. The primary article shouldn't be the band. The band fails WP:MUSIC utterly. It is, after all, an entirely fictional band. The game is what is the real thing in the real world. And the game is called Jamie Kane. Boy*d Upp should, if anything, redirect here, as per WP:FICT. Uncle G 00:32:17, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Following the rewrite I agree and have changed my vote on both VfDs accordingly.
  • Keep and expand. Page has been linked to in outside sources; for many people, this page is their first glimpse of Wikipedia. And 'viral marketing'? Frankly, my Wiki, I don't give a damn. Almafeta 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Viral marketing is not acceptable use of Wikipedia. Buy your own site, like ILoveBees did.--SarekOfVulcan 21:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC 21:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and advertising. - Motor (talk) 22:15:20, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a bare-faced abuse of Wikipedia which should not be tolerated. -- Arwel 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page probably reflected a clueless member (perhaps of the team that produced Jamie Kane) rather than an orchestrated attempt by the BBC to add false information to Wikipedia. A reason to keep: Potentially mutually beneficial to BBC and Wikipedia due to increased exposure AND having just signed up for an account (it does seem quite well done) - it is potentially a good article to talk about use (and misuse!) of new web technologies. A reason to delete: Not notable (outside of BBC/Wikipedia) yet: If/when 'he' becomes notable, someone (outside the BBC) will add the page back. --Mintchocicecream 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If some actual article about the campaign/project/hoax emerges, redirecting there would also be an acceptable alternative. --Michael Snow 22:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is an attribute created over time. This is clearly an attempt to create that notability by exploiting Wikipedia. Also, abuse of advertising policy. --johnd 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia's response to being hijacked (by anyone) as part of "viral marketing" should be: "No thank you". This isn't even fancruft: there aren't any fans. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with strong prejudice. As per JohnD. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--nixie 23:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited without mercy and done a complete rewrite from sources about the actual game, rather than about the eponymous character within the game, providing the "article on the BBC's game that this character is from" that Dayv (and Michael Snow, William Pietri, and Mholland) mentions above. The list of sources given in the references section indicates that this game has received some news media and other coverage over the past year. Whilst the original fake biography of a fictional character may qualify as viral marketing, the current straight summary of primary and secondary sources (some of them critical) dealing with a venture by the BBC into the world of interactive fiction does not. Furthermore, better this than a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game over the next few months repeatedly being deleted (which, based upon past experience, is what would likely happen if the article were deleted). Keep. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep new version. —Ashley Y 00:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-researched, balanced and impressive rewrite. --Mintchocicecream 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly weakly. This is currently nn as it has no fans and is a probably failing venture judging from the article. Although the BBC is a respectable organisation, pretty much any corporation could shuffle out a lowish quality VR game without it being notable. They might want it to "go viral" and might want it to get big, but so far it hasn't. -Splash 01:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that any company can create a game web site. However, the beauty of basing articles upon reliable third-party sources is that it does tend to filter out those games that don't get press coverage in national newspapers (where that coverage isn't a simple regurgitation of a press release) during their development and launch. Uncle G 03:02:22, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. the best way to deflate this attempt to promote a fictional character is to present the real facts, which Uncle G has done splendidly. i think this will be more effective at deterring similar stunts than deleting the article. Chieftramp 02:15 monday 15 vii (bst)
  • Delete: still not noteworthy, and we're still serving more as a means of advertising than as an encyclopedia. An ad campaign isn't in itself noteworthy. If the fact that the BBC—which ought to be concerned about its reputation for truthfulness, as a news organization—advertises by appearing to perpetrate a hoax might eventually become noteworthy, but not until and unless it bites them in the ass. - Nunh-huh 01:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jamie Kane is not an advertising campaign. It's an alternate reality game. And this article discusses the game's commissioning, creators, history of development, cost, writers, plot, and so forth. Please don't confuse other editors' comments in the preceding discussion with what is actually in the article and in the sources. Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Of course it's advertising. It's a way of getting people—primarily teenaged girls with disposable income, who are desirable to website and broadcast advertisers—to sign on to BBC-run bulletin boards (bbc.co.uk) etc. Your article even links to the page for people to sign up for the game and website! - Nunh-huh 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, under this kind of definition, many things could be considered advertising. I mean, one could potentially argue that the iPod page is as much of a promotion of the iPod. As Uncle G mentions, if the page is deleted, "a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game" would occur. Surely, this article deserved to be kept. --Mintchocicecream 02:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our iPod article was not created from within Apple headquarters. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since the iPod article was created by a registered user, you have no way to make that determination, and if you care to check the page history for the article we're actually voting on, there is no way to know this one was created in BBC headquarters either. - Aya 42 T C 03:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The same can't be said of the "Boy*d Upp" article, where this material originated, can it. Who knew the BBC had such rabid running dog defenders? This is a web-based game that is less than two weeks old, created to funnel web-traffic to the BBC web-site. It has no other significance. - Nunh-huh 04:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, there may be advertising effects by having this article, but so do many of the articles here. AFAIK Uncle G isn't from the BBC and even if so, the significant edits contributed by him and other users are balanced and suitable for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, apart from actually being in the UK, I have no affiliation with the BBC nor do many of the supporters on this page. Assuming you have read the discussion, it is clear this is a complete re-write and I can't see how this article originated from the Boy*d Upp article. Generally, the BBC has a massive amount of resources to wield at its disposal and would neither need to nor resort to relying on an open-content encyclopedia to funnel traffic to their website! In any case, Wikipedia is not a website frequented primarily by 14-18 year old girls and thus any advertising effects is minimal. --Mintchocicecream 09:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. It's a game, as I said. By your excessively broad definition of advertising, Wheel of Fortune is not a game but is instead a way of advertising and getting people to watch television channels. Uncle G 03:21:28, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
          • You thought maybe it was art? The BBC clearly felt that a game to entice young teenage girls to acquire a log-in to the BBC website was worth a good deal of money, as they paid for its development for exactly that purpose. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This kind of Wikipedia abuse should not be tolerated by any means. --Andre (talk) 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • An article that straightforwardly summarizes 9 cited sources is "abuse"? Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep - The original article was possibly bogus, but the new one helpfully written by Uncle G is well-sourced, and deserves to remain. - Aya 42 T C 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) Keep- I've gotta say, the new edits have changed my votes. I am now under the impression that the original article was, at worst, a bad choice or presentation, rather than deliberate free advertising. I feel the article as it is now is both well written and possibly notable enough to keep. And I agree that not having the article may cause people to recreate it in the future. My only current concern is how new the game is. It may well be a big flop and gone in a few weeks. Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 02:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:53
  • Delete. Advertising nonsense. Andrew pmk 02:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original was indeed advertising, but the rewritten article is a good one. I invite everyone who voted prior to seeing the new article to have a look at it now and consider if they want to change or keep their vote the way it is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote. The article is now about the game, and the game was notable enough to have been covered in the referenced Guardian article. Kudos to User:Uncle G for the rewrite. --William Pietri 04:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The new article is notable, factual, and of encyclopedic note as to both the game and the issue of viral marketing. MCB 05:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although if having information on unreleased games is undesirable, perhaps rename it (Perhaps Prerelease:Jamie_Kane ?). I'm eagerly awaiting the game Oblivion, which isn't released yet, and was glad to find significant information about it here. Ron Johnson Ron Johnson
  • Keep, this shows the Wikipedia process at its finest. All hail UncleG!-- Visviva 06:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an important event in the development online interactive marketing. Several editors need to move beyond their petulant school yard hurt, and think in a more mature way. --ben dummett 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's the harm? --Rebroad 08:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. If it becomes significant at some point in the future WITHOUT basing that significance on exploitation of Wikipedia, then some article might be appropriate at THAT time. Shanen 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Things should get here after they are already known to people. this game thing is not even a trend at the moment, so this is pure advertisement (and even now that it gets deleted, the advertisement went thru, despite the fact the target are presumably teenager girls... how many among slashdot readers?) Jaromil
  • Keep. It's all good now. Meneth 09:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now. James F. (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the page has been edited to refer to the game rather than the characters therein, and since the issue has gained at least a moderate level of interest on the internet, I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping it. However, pages like the one for Boy*d Upp are still viral advertising completely without merit. Even with rewrites I don't see how that page could be made relevant, so I will be voting to delete it. --Parallel or Together? 10:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because of the sensationalist and unnecesary coverage on BoingBoing and SlashDupe, what could have been simply removed as vandalism has mutated into a story which is more about Wikipedia and the way it is used than anything else. I think it has to stay now. Reluctantly, keep. --Jolyonralph 10:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following excellent rewrite. Thryduulf
  • Keep, now after rewrite, it deserves it's own article. --Thv 10:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has been edited and has substance now, why not let it live? --Wwwwolf 10:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rewrite is allowable. --Benna 10:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Current revision accurate. --P0ppe 10:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rewrite is good, and thanks to Uncle G for rewriting this and correcing Wikipedia quickly to remove advertising fake articles.--ShaunMacPherson 10:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Kizor 10:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is abuse -- Crucis 10:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a good and accurate article about a game promoted by a major broadcasting corporation. Www.wikinerds.org 10:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thanks to Uncle G's rewrite, the article is now informative in nature, rather advertising drivel --Hemsath 10:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten version. If this spoils anyone's enjoyment of the game, then good! It's a damn stupid idea for a game in the first place! David | Talk 10:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to excellent rewrite. Michael 10:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep new version for now, maybe re-visit this process if the BBC's ARG disappears without a trace. — PhilHibbs | talk 10:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten version. Nice work, Uncle G. --Jdcope 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article as now written appears to be accurate and is backed by links to non-BBC external media. It's even pretty NPOV. Thparkth 11:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest removing the external links so that this page is not part of the BBC's marketting effort. --Rcingham 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have things like Donald Love, afterall. -Lethe | Talk 11:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The articles surrounding this topic are good advertising for Wikipedia. It would be a shame if the people could not find out what this rumor was about. --Leopard 11:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What about entries for (esp. famous) fictional characters in books? or movies? I see this as no different. As rewritten by Uncle G, the article is very informative, and just the sort of thing I would hope to find on Wikipedia. It would be difficult to find all this information elsewhere. unsigned vote from 11:33, August 15, 2005 User:Richardbondi
  • Keep: looks good now. --WS 11:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reason to keep. Noted in Viral Marketing article... unsigned vote from 11:39, August 15, 2005 User:Parkylondon
  • Keep: thanks, Uncle G, for the excellent rewrite. FreplySpang (talk) 11:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy Delete. Marketting/Advertisement/Abuse. Completely undermines the credibility and purpose of Wikipedia. This game is barely a week old. At best, it is a news story, and belongs on a news site, not an encycolpedia. DeWayneLehman 11:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • How does replacing fictional rubbish with proper articles undermine the credibility of Wikipedia? Surely the opposite is the case? How does writing fully-referenced articles with cited sources undermine the purpose of Wikipedia? Is that not what we are supposed to be doing? Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • The article does not belong here, regardless of how well you rewrite it. This topic's only impact outside of wikipedia is the press it has gotten for exploiting Wikipedia for Viral Marketting. Are you now going to edit articles for every game every created within days of its release? Is Wikipedia now a news magainze, or a game review site? You did a good job editting, but the topic does not belong here, no matter how well written. No amount of changes to the article will make the topic more relevant for Wikipedia. This belongs here no more than copying game reviews from CNN does. DeWayneLehman 14:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's been rewritten, why bother deleting it? --Jambalaya 12:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: but emphasize the vandalism and viral marketing attempt (in themselves as notable as the game) with links to each. If notable articles warranted deletion because they involved unethical behavior or people, we'd lose most historical articles. The entire point of having an electronic encyclopedia is null and void if it is artificially time-delayed. Unigolyn 12:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: don't need this on wikipedia. Elfguy 12:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an example of how wiki allows us to rapidly change what was an attempt at free advertising to a factual article about the game. There is no need to dismiss this out of hand because of the original content of the article. --h3l1x 12:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. Looks good to me. --TexasDex 12:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: rewriting it for NPOV and spelling everything correctly doesn't change the fact that it isn't notable (yet) and shouldn't be here. Anyone who argues that it's notable because of this fuss has, to be brutally frank, completely lost it. - Motor (talk) 12:27:09, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • You're missing the fact that it wasn't rewritten solely in order to render the neutral point of view and to correct spelling. It was rewritten using information from cited sources. Several of those sources are press coverage of the subject matter in national newspapers, which date from 2004, pre-dating "this fuss" by 9 months. Uncle G 15:51:53, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • From what I can tell, the References section is a collection of links to blogs and a couple of PR stories in the Guardian. Hardly notability... if the game takes off the article can be recreated. Until then, it should be binned. - Motor (talk) 17:08:19, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
        • If your argument is that the fact that newspapers cover something, and that people discuss it, does not indicate notability at all, then I disagree. If your argument is simply about what level of discussion is necessary, then I agree that this subject is at the low end of the spectrum. However, as I stated above, an additional factor to take into account is that were this article to be deleted, we'd quite probably (as has happened in other cases in the past) have a succession of silly "Jamie Kane is a pop star" articles continually re-created in its place by players of the game over the coming months. Better an encyclopaedia with a proper article about a subject at the low end of the notability spectrum than an encyclopaedia with a succession of silly articles. Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
          • I got a mention in two of my local newspapers last week. Wikipedia article here I come! If I trawl google I can find people have been discussing any old cruft and rubbish. The Guardian entries are PR stories... ten-a-penny. I simply don't understand your point about how there will be lots of "Jamie Kane" new pages -- you don't and can't know that. If that starts to happen then people are playing it and it's becoming more notable, in which case my position might change. Your speculation is hardly a good reason for keeping it... isn't Wikipedia supposed to catalogue notable things rather than predict them? - Motor (talk) 18:47:38, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Delete: If you allow this, then prepare for every company to spam their products on wikipedia. "Acme Widget 4.2-- this is a great product blah blah blah. You wouldn't find this in a normal encyclopedia. Perhaps after it was out for a while and became popular, but not as a PR gimmick. Scovetta 09:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's too long for such a non-notable program, but Wikipedia is not paper and can handle it. There is nothing wrong with factual articles about products per se. But it should be shortened, if possible. Paranoid 13:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Current edit perfectly acceptable. Chris 13:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (WP:NOT paper!) Thank you for rewriting. While it's quite annoying of someone to make hoax articles, especially for advertising, it's not really the spirit of Wikipedia to delete this revised article out of retaliation. I feel like a lot of the delete votes are designed for punishment. Brighterorange 13:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would have stayed marketing if no complaints, changed only under threat of deletion. Keep this, others will follow. Brewder
  • Keep. Current version is fine. ed g2s • talk 13:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: New version describes the game in a neutral fashion. Knobunc 13:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Yeah, it was a pile of crap earlier on, but it's certainly acceptable now. -- phrawzty 14:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no problem with articles about Star Trek and well known video game characters. If this game lasts for a long time, then maybe it will be worth an article. I would have no problem with an entry for this game within some larger article dealing with online video games, however if people think it is worth mentioning within Wikipedia. We should be working for quality of articles, not quantity, and creating a page for every thing people think up can get ridiculous. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Commercial advertising. rwilsonjr
  • Weak Delete: Spam, but others have edited the article to properly expose the scam. STrRedWolf 14:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With the rewrite it's a decent factual article. Moreover, it now seems to be a *popular* article, so we might as well have some good text there! Mark Williamson 14:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whatever the aftermath, the intent was to promote a commercial product - a game. Wikipedia is not a marketing medium. Shoot 'em down! --getkashyap 14:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seem to be numerous delete votes whose only reasoning is that the article's original version may have been a marketing ploy. These people should note that the article has since been fixed, and this claim no longer holds any water. Just because you think this is somehow "bad for Wikipedia" doesn't mean you get to bypass Wikipedia policy and invoke nonsense deletion rationale. Of course, this comment will never stop the simple-minded contrarians out there, so feel free to vote delete by definition! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 14:59
  • Strong Keep gtiven outrageous accusations against the BBC, SqueakBox 15:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Current article is fine. --ElKevbo 15:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rewrite is fine. Anomaly1 15:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well done to Uncle G on the rewrite. johnSLADE (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rewrite is informative and not misleading. Lionheart 16:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the article stands right now, it's very clear that this is a fictional character. I see no problem with the article in its current state. --Doradus 15:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I note that people are still voting for deletion based on the notion that the BBC or its minions were behind this. Apparently that is not the case. Were this intentional, I'd be tempted to delete as a warning, but I don't see any reason to punish the BBC for something a couple of fans did. --William Pietri 15:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "pour décourager les autres". Otherwise we send the message "come put in all the fake entries you want and we'll polish them up for you." A lot of good work on the new version wasted, but it's gotta go.
    • Why is "If you put a fake entry in Wikipedia we will mercilessly edit it, replacing it with a real encyclopaedia article." not a messsage that you want to send? Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Why is "If you put a fake entry in Wikipedia we will expand it, cross-link it, increase its Google-rank, and publicize your otherwise ephemeral unnoteworthy advertising device, hosting it and enshrining it for eternity" a message that you want to send? - Nunh-huh 22:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rewritten version is appropriate, as it's about the game, not the "singer". It's now in the same spirit is the many other entries on fictional elements. We shouldn't degrade the quality of WP to "send a message". AnthonySorace 15:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia cannot abandon its responsibilities as an encyclopaedia even in order to punish those who act to harm it. — ciphergoth 15:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: New article is good. DenisMoskowitz 15:57, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Keep: Looks like it's been fixed to me. -- Skyfaller 16:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep*; New version is very imformative
  • Keep Cleduc 16:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* -- Current version makes deletion needless, addresses issues behind original VfD. Also notable. -- Adrian 16:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The whole matter sets a bad precedent, delete it. If necessary, create a new article for the game. -- 66.159.216.215 16:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now, new revision practically is a new article. Turn the other cheek despite the intentions of the OP and the avoid self-ref rule. We fix misuse and move on. -Eisnel 16:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks fine now to me. Go Slashdot! Explodicle 16:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks great now! Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Lucien 16:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Gamaliel 17:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there was never any reason to remove this, editing it slightly was enough. (This was never even viral marketing) --Sindri 17:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current page is NPOV and valuable --Lpm 18:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As currently written, it is a NPOV discussion of a notable internet issue --Hedgeman 17:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Original article was poorly written but not spam or an attempt at viral marketing. BBC gets no income from the game and current article is well-written and NPOV. RichW 18:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current version is good and the precedent that it sets is that bad articles will be corrected. -- billatq 1806, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some of y'all are just mad because you got hoaxed. Hooper_X
  • Keep Article appears to be factual and corrent now. These sorts of things will happen, and they will get sorted out. mcdavis42 19:33 UTC 15-AUG-05
  • Keep. Kudos to Uncle_G for fixing the article up. I hadn't even realised that the game was eponymous to the character. Or is that the other way around? Whatever. Dayv 18:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm annoyed that someone originally added false information to Wikipedia, but I believe this is the best response...convert it to a well-sourced, factual, NPOV, encyclopedic article. Thanks, Uncle_G. -- MikeJ9919 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the original article was intended to deceive. It sounds to me more like it was a poorly written article that was taken in the wrong context. Never underestimate the likelyhood of human error :).RichW 19:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article seems to have been properly redone to fit the wiki standards. SF2K1 19:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like articles such as Haunted Apiary, ARG coverage is pretty important on Wikipedia. Jal.
  • Strong Keep. Now that the article has been restored to its proper state their is no reason for deletion. I often reffered to wikipidea for info during Haunted Apiary and OurColony Phoenix9
  • Delete. There's no need for Wikipedia to become someone's advertising recepticle. -- LGagnon 20:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has become something more then the original post/intention and is worth preserving (especially after this level of interest). --Nycmstar 20:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In its present form it is informative, and innocuous.--Shoka 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting the article now that it has been rewritten fairly would look like petty vindictiveness. Keeping it in its present form shows WPs strengths. It says to the would be abusers "Sure you can TRY to subvert our encyclopedia, but we won't let that happen. We will take your biased ad and turn it into a real article which may or may not help you out. Spam us at your own risk." Keeping this article isn't giving our stamp of approval to either the (supposed) viral marketing tactics or the game itself anymore than the afore mentioned Haunted Apiary article does. Brian Schlosser42 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current version is usefully informative. --Wanion 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maintaining my pre-rewrite vote. Even with the rewrite, this should be a Wikinews article, not a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is the place for notable, successful, and completed ARGs; Wikinews is the place for current events. This writeup is good, just post it up when the game is over. As an aside, if I had been a Wikipedian in the age of ilovebees and ourcolony, I would have voted for deletion of them as well, for the same reasons. obo 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say this is a notable ARG - it is the first aimed at a 'normal' user (14-18yr old girls are outside of the typical market for such games), it is the first ARG done by an institution as well respected as the BBC and it is complete in that many people have played the game to completion. 84.9.20.203 22:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's an entry for Doctor_who another BBC character, why not Jamie Kane DougieLawson 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  • Merge with Gay Nigger Association of America into topic "Things that Wikipedians think are notable because they affected Wikipedia" --66.101.59.18 00:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is now factual. Bryan 00:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I said in the main Talk page, what the BBC does is interesting - even their new work. The rewrite makes the article better, but I would have voted to keep it even in the old form. ---NathanO 01:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as long as there is a page for Majestic, another ARG. An ARG released and promoted by the BBC seem infinitely more encyclopedia-worthy than an EA stillbirth. Whether or not the article was originally caused by vandalism is irrelevant to the importance of its current content. Lachek, 21:23 Aug 15th
  • Delete This kind of usage should be discouraged. Britannica wouldn't allow it. ;)
  • Keep - A Reality Computer game like this is quite interesting. Just reading about the AI interactions and the amount of work being put into this game by the BBC warrants an article I think. - Hahnchen 03:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It is not referencing a historical event nor a well established phenomenon. Citation in the Wikipedia pre-empts its importance as something worth knowing / being referenced; thus it remains advertising. 203.4.163.7
  • Weak Keep Nice rewrite. Given this has made news elsewhere and is no longer misleading worth keeping. Wikipedia really does answer any question, even ones I would never be interested in. Interesting that this controversy could be counted part of the viral marketing of the game itself. Augustz 22:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An abuse of wikipedia by a very minor game, which has little claim to be listed in even the most enclyclopedic encyclopedia. Moreover - although I believe the BBC that this was not done with their official approval - it was committed by people involved in this game for their own advantage. Winterstein 21:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting Pg133 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fascinating discussion and it would be a shame to loose it.
  • Keep As long as it is edited to contain factual information, then there is no reason to actually kill it, IMHO.
  • Keep In it's current state I do not find anything to be wrong with the article. It is a legitimate entry about an actual game, it has both positive and negative information in the entry, making it seem much less like an advertising effort than a source of an answer for a legitimate question. tadpole256[[User talk:Tadpole256| *** ]
  • Keep Regardless of what the original article may have been, it's been rewritten now, and deleting it out of spite would reflect badly on wikipedia. It's no less notable than some of the other articles out there --Random|832 05:36, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
  • Delete An mo 15:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The re-written version looks very encyclopedic. Whether or not the character is notable as fancruft for the computer game, it is notable for the advertising campaign, and the wikipedia controversy. In fact, it might be worth adding a section on the wikipedia history. (In a way, it's a pity that votes from before the re-write still count. And what happens if 1000 people think it should be kept, but 1001 people think it should be removed?) Bluap 09:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written article, no difference then an article other games or game characters. 84.153.25.225 15:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Current article is well-written, however it tends to play into the whole viral marketing theme. Would rather see it as a sub-entry on a viral-marketing page than an entire entry on its own. Kemkerj 16:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable subject - regardless of how the original article came into being. Secretlondon 00:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Here today, gone tomorrow premise, marketing does not belong in an encylopedia. Delete post-haste.

Unsigned votes, votes from unregistered or very new users

  • Keep The re-write is excellent. Just fact.
  • Speedy delete Blatant abuse of the anti-spam rules here, exists exclusively to promote a product and is no intrest to anyone
  • Speedy delete If I wanted to see a commercial I'd turn on the TV
  • Speedy delete Useless blatent advertising AviN456 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk. Useless Advertising. damiandamiandamian
  • Delete It's marketing mbrewer
  • Delete Commercial Advertising rthorntn
  • Delete Commercial Advertising Qolume 09:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know that the BBC is not a commercial organisation? ed g2s • talk 13:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising Baffledexpert 13:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Instead of deletion, wouldn't it be more valuable to make an article about the whole thing and redirect all related entries to this unique article ? The article could present the fake facts and a discussion on the use by the BBC of the Wikipedia as part of a viral marketing campaign. --81.245.143.84 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To do so would be to play into the hands of the vandals. Exactly what they're trying to do is to generate "buzz" -- to make something seem notable which was not notable before, and to abuse Wikipedia to do it. That's basically the definition of Wikispam. This isn't an interesting case of "viral marketing" -- it is simply the abuse of Wikipedia. It needs to be deleted, and the offenders made incapable of doing it again, by blocking and banning. --FOo 17:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "buzz" has been around for over a year. See the references in the rewritten article. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • keep Uncle G's rewrite is good. AdamJacobMuller T@lk Fri Aug 19 16:08:51 GMT 2005


  • Delete. Would set a precedent.
  • keep Rewrite, but keep. The person who created this maybe a marketing scum, but its fairly well written. It should be subjected to intense fack checking & rewrite, though. pamri 09:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new version. Good information for people who want to know who that Jamie Kane everybody talks about is.
  • Delete:marketing/abuse
  • Keep Current version is encyclopedic, talks about the show, not about the fictional character
  • N.BThe article could be seen as advertising BUT the BBC is not a commercial entity (for the time being at least). The BBC is not allowed to use commercial ads for revenue; if you look at the BBC site, you'll notice they only ever advertise their other free services, programmes, or radio. It can be argued that their TV service isn't free, but even that is changing (I'm not even gonna think about pointing to the relevant link! ^_^). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theharker (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 12:51:00 UTC
  • Keep: While the past versions were questionable, the current version seems perfectly acceptable.
  • Keep: But keep the current article, which is really about a fictional character.
  • Delete: Organizations that abuse Wikipedia in order to promote their own agenda need to be completely removed and blocked from the system. Merely editing the entry, even if it is a complete re-write, still continues to promote their original agenda, and does not hurt them in any way.
  • Keep: The article now acurately reflects the fictional nature. 131.81.200.154 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Same reason as Mark Williamson 165.21.154.15 14:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Original references to Kane, which could be morphed into cyberterminology Kaning, or the abuse of metamedia for marketing purposes. Useful origin in the matter, especially in the advent of these tactics.
  • Strong Keep': would have been a strong delete, but with Uncle G's rewrite the article should now be kept.
  • Keep: Keep the current rewritten article, is it's informational and not advertising. Also see the I Love Bees entry for an accepted article on a similar topic.
  • Keep, as long as there is a page for Majestic, another ARG. An ARG released and promoted by the BBC seem infinitely more encyclopedia-worthy than an EA stillbirth. Whether or not the article was originally caused by vandalism is irrelevant to the importance of its current content. Lachek, 21:23 Aug 15th
  • Delete This kind of usage should be discouraged. Britannica wouldn't allow it. ;)
  • Delete
  • Merge with Gay Nigger Association of America into topic "Things that Wikipedians think are notable because they affected Wikipedia" --66.101.59.18 00:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It is not referencing a historical event nor a well established phenomenon. Citation in the Wikipedia pre-empts its importance as something worth knowing / being referenced; thus it remains advertising. 203.4.163.7
  • Keep interesting Pg133 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fascinating discussion and it would be a shame to loose it.
  • Keep As long as it is edited to contain factual information, then there is no reason to actually kill it, IMHO.
  • Keep, deletion proposal predates Uncle_G's edits. The article is about the game, hence properly titled. External links point to it. It is not vandalism. An article like this one -- factual, accurate, with references -- should not be deleted just because the original version was controversial. --EJHuff 04:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete marketing campaign plain and simple. And it's not because it is a controversy now that it deserves to live.
  • Delete Better Wikipedia leave commercial product information to other websites, than it become Wikispameteria. 70.19.59.94 05:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The apology is irrelevant, what is important is the intent, which was to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium. This is unacceptable however you look at it. StuartCarter 06:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current page is informational, and given that it has been mentioned on slashdot and boingboing it is now part of Wikipedia lore. Meta though it may be, the history of Wikipedia itself is worth considering. Right now it is clearly marked as fictional and NPOV, so I see no reason at all to delete it other than petty revenge. MasterDirk 06:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fine to me... Gowdy 06:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First edit.
  • Keep It is not a marketing ploy it is just a reference to delete would be censorship - there is nothing that is not fact based in tha article now. -- grouchal
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, then redirect to Jamie_Kane. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boy*d Upp

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign.--Barberio 08:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since sanity is evidently scarce here, I ought to point out that the BoingBoing article makes no accusations, and cites no concrete evidence that this is actually an "advertising campaign" at all. It is merely a suspicion, which is why the headline ends with a question mark. Did you not get taught at school the difference between a question and a statement? Consequently I don't understand how you've rationalized this sudden jump from BoingBoing's premise...
"This page might be an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign"
...to the logically distinct premise...
"This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign".
I also suggest that any other sheepy votes based solely on Barberio's bogus reasoning, and shameless scaremongering, should be discounted.
You should also be aware that you are, in effect, creating a viral advertising campaign for the BoingBoing site amongst readers of this page. Perhaps we should confirm that Barberio isn't an employee of the BoingBoing site? :)
However, it is far more likely that the BoingBoing site launched a public attack on the BBC in the hopes of provoking the BBC into publicly striking back at them, with the hopes of exploiting the BBC's far wider audience as a means to gain more publicity for itself, thus increasing its potential advertising revenues.
Same applies to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane - Aya 42 T C 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Well, not entirely sure why trying to make a personal attack against me is relevent here? Not entirely sure if you are supporting deletion or keeping either.
The original creator of these articles, a BBC employee, has said that he did not have official sanction on creating them, and has apologised for doing so. Can I suggest that instead of whipping up BoingBoing Vs BBC arguments, we just accept the apology, and quietly progress to the deletion of these articles. We don't want to make it hard on the guy for an honest mistake by turning it into a big argument. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. There was a smiley face after one of the paragraphs to indicate it was semi-humorous, but be careful when writing things like you did just there. People tend to believe you whether you're right or not. - Aya 42 T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:MattC only created the boy-band article. The original article was created by someone who is not necessarily affiliated with the BBC. RichW 18:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. The BBC and BoingBoing are both pretty well-known to much of the Wikipedia audience, and neither of them particularly needs this kind of stunt for publicity. Instead of responding to speculation with more irresponsible speculation, might I remind people that assuming good faith is a principle that can be applied to people outside Wikipedia as well. --Michael Snow 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I've never heard of BoingBoing before. - Aya 42 T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamie Kane in light of Uncle G's edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This marker represents the point where Uncle G rewrote the associated Jamie Kane article

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Round-robin networks

I don't know much about the subject, but I've only found 11 Google hits. [8] So surely it can be merged somewhere?

lots of issues | leave me a message 09:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Hearn

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 5 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Lambrect

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Asahi

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Schism of 2005

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Church of Kirin

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opa!

A lot more could be written about this expression, which is famous here. Since Eh has an article, Opa! should, too. The title must change, however, because we have two ways to use/pronounce it. "Opa" can also mean "hey you made a mistake" or "I am happy" depending on how you pronounce it and how long you pronounce the O sound. "opa-opa" is also related, and I think it's used in songs. If you delete it, could someone please contribute it to my wiki? Www.wikinerds.org 10:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Mark

Very likely an advertisement, no apparent notability. See also comments on talk page. Sandstein 10:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, if nothing else. --Apyule 12:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above --Lomedae 13:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete My comments on the talk page were: Is there any independent source for this? Most of the information seems to be lifted directly from the commercial web site. Doing a Google check shows various press releases from the company behind the Imperial Mark, but nothing AFAICS from anyone independent. A news item such as this: [1] originates from IC, the International Charter Organisation themselves. A search of Omega's own site reveals no mention of the Mark, there is likewise nothing on the Harrods site, nor as far as I can see on the Rolex site. DavidFarmbrough 09:00 (BST) 15 Aug 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Redwolf24 04:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society

Wikipedia is not a web directory. See WP:NOT. If relevant to the topic, these links should be part of the external links section of Watchtower Society. -- Karada 10:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title 28

Title 28 is the portion of the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the federal judicial system. It includes provisions about quite a few judiciary-related topics, and relevant sections are cited in the appropriate articles, such as in Diversity jurisdiction. Title 28 doesn't need a separate article. If it did, the article wouldn't be a POV diatribe against one extremely minor portion relating to bankruptcy law. (Title 28 isn't even the key title on bankruptcy, the substance of which is covered in Title 11.) Delete. JamesMLane 10:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's right! We're a Pokemon directory. Get this law cruft out. That's no vote, I'll leave exact arangement of US laws to US lawyers --zippedmartin 23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Weak Keep if there can be just a little more meat on this badboy. It needs to be cleaned up. Karmafist 22:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germany and weapons of mass destruction

Looks like anti-German propaganda to me, nothing here is really educational. 80.131.68.126 10:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If people who start an article can't be bothered to observe the neutrality policy their work should be deleted to demonstrate strong disapproval of their approach. It shouldn't be left for others to battle to correct it - or worse, left as it is. New articles are only legitimate if they are neutral. Better to wait for someone to start this again. Osomec 11:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. The votes are actually numerically almost equal, which would be a no-consensus keep. But most of the deletes were cast before the initial stub which is now in place was written and are clearly rejecting the adevertising content that was present at the time. All but one vote after the stub would keep — and one of the deleters allows for a "major rewrite" too. Further, the article has been further expanded since even most of the keep votes. -Splash 07:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gites in France

Entire article was written as excuse for external link to tourist web site. --rob 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage can be tranlated in French by "villa" or in some case by "résidence secondaire". In both case they are not vacation accomodation. A gîte is a type of vacation accomodation usually (but not always) for familly. Also, a datcha is also "datcha" in French, no relation with a "gîte". Romary 09:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I don't think I've ever stayed in one (tents are cheaper), they've certainly been advertised as such to british tourists for many years. Not sure I've got any holiday pamphlets from the 80s around to scan though, and that's the kinda thing that has 0 web presence. Not as common a term as 'villa' maybe, but certainly common. --zippedmartin 23:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like Dunc, please consider that gîte (and "Gîtes de France", a famous vacation accommodations chain) is a major part of the culture of France. Korg 01:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (See "gîte" on Wiktionary).[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:58
  • Delete as dicdef once the spam is removed. Vegaswikian 05:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is really a subject. The link to "gîte de France" can be removed. The subject can be developed by adding information on "Gîte d'étape" for the hikers and "gîte rural" for vacation accomodation. Romary 09:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh my god, I must be having a bad day! Anyway, I can honestly say that Gite (hat over the i) is a word in day to day use here in France and does, indeed, refer to a nationwide letting of cottage-type places. The article is a bit naff though and could do with a less spammy re-write. --Marcus22 15:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From time to time, over the years, I have actually wondered just what a gîte is. I know it's some sort of holiday let thing, but how does it work? Are they owned by companies, or by individuals who stay there themselves? I have this notion that they are rural things, usually converted farmhouses - but is that true? Can there be gîtes in towns? And why are they called "gîtes" - a marketing thing? Is there a distinction between gîtes and other holiday homes? When did this gîte thing come about? I hope the article can be expanded so that I can get some answers.--Finbarr Saunders 22:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raymonite

This looks like a joke or hoax to me. I checked with Google to be sure: no hits for "The Book of Laws Inherent to Eternal Substance" and the only relevant hit for Raymonite is this. Sietse 12:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a religion that a bunch of college students have created and use as a story that they continually expand upon. They are even writing a book about it. The text referenced - laws inherent to eternal substance (L.I.E.S.) is a few pages scribbled on lined paper. This article should not be deleted, it should be updated to accurately represent what Raymonites are. But - it is true that while the religion is not real, a Raymonite (someone who believes the religion) would be exactly what the post says. It's just that there are no real Raymonites yet.

As for the fortunecity homepage, I have never heard of it even though I am one of the creators. I know all 30-ish people involved, and I don't think the page is one of their's either.

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit High School, Portland

Nothing noteworthy about this particular school IMHO, the initial entry isn't even barely a stub. Lomedae 12:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the article has been edited. Still, for the life of me I can't see why people don't just create a Wiki-Schools project, instead of incorporating a directory of all schools great or small into the main Wikipedia. Most schools are only notable to their region and (former) students. I strongly disagree with the statement that "all established schools are noteworthy". Just my 2 cents. --Lomedae 14:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rosen

Appears to be non-notable vanity. One newspaper article doesn't make the subject notable IMO. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

keep try to google better, there's quite a lot of info on this case it seems --Raistlin 12:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep It has decent media coverage. --Lomedae 13:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:58
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Leong

Probably a defamation attempt. No google hits for this name in the context referred to by the article; at any rate, not notable. Sandstein 12:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail Help Center

A request for a modification to the Gmail service. This should be adressed directly to Google, not written up here. Delete as non-encyclopedic. Sandstein 12:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete imho. --Raistlin 13:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy. Appears to be an attempt to communicate with the subject named in the title, so it can be speedied. I've marked it as such. android79 15:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Excellent call by android79.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 16:19:56, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Speedied as contact attempt. Entire content was "Albanian language in Gmail should be active too.... I dont understand why it not tranlated yet..." Niteowlneils 18:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrient premix

  • You've got to be kidding me... Actually the way it is right now is fine. I can live without the link. Nutrient premixes are a billion dollar industry world-wide.

This was posted by User:Markfanion, who has created a row of articles which look like ads for the company Fortitech. In the case of this article the link to fortitech has already been removed, but I still think the rest of the article sound like an ad, saying how difficult premixes are to make. Thue | talk 20:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this because, apart from the nominator, all those who voted are relatively new accounts. Another five days discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Naysmyth

The person and his band do appear to exist, but - judging from Google results - no notability is established. The band does not appear to be the Manic Street Preachers that have an article of their own. Sandstein 13:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is the live keyboard player for the Manic Street Preachers, and has additionally been on television with them, in documentaries. He is also listed in the credits of three of their albums.

He has a cult status with fans of the band.

His name is sometimes spelt Nick Naysmith, but it is believed that it is Naysmyth.

Hence, my vote is to keep the page - Michael Anazapela

  • Michael, if this is so and Naysmyth has little notability on his own, consider merging the info into the main Manic Street Preachers article or enhancing the Naysmyth article (cf. the tag I've added). To make what you say verifiable, consider linking to the relevant sources in the Naysmyth article. Best regards, Sandstein 14:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Links for album credits? C'mon... He's certainly in the band. Don't have much to say on the notability front, though I found this (not-profesional) review amusing: "The problem with the latter-day Manics is the addition of keyboardist Nick Naysmyth. Words cannot describe how utterly crap he is. He uses all of one finger in the aforementioned song." --zippedmartin 00:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon gall

Seems just a shameless plug in the form of a CV... not encyclopedic Raistlin 13:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muawwaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Muaaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Umayah ibn Khalaf's contribution to the battle of Badr, Walid ibn Utba's contribution to the battle of Badr, Obaidah ibn al-Harith's contribution to the battle of Badr, Ali ibn Abu Talib's contribution to the battle of Badr, Bilal ibn Ribah's contribution to the battle of Badr

Article topic is not notable on its own. Dr Gangrene 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4

While I agree that it is likely that this game will come out someday, absolutely nothing is actually known about it. Every single item in the article is utter speculation. Details about the game are expected to be announced next month at a trade show, so I'd say delete this and recreate it after it's actually announced. (Am I being too type-A here? I'm seriously interested in knowing the consensus). Nandesuka 13:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I believe it was also in Famitsu. --Zeno McDohl 21:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:59
  • will be announced next month? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- delete. --Calton | Talk 15:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
What? It was already announced. --Zeno McDohl 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's been in Jump, it's announced. Shingen 19:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muawwaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Muaaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Umayah ibn Khalaf's contribution to the battle of Badr, Walid ibn Utba's contribution to the battle of Badr, Obaidah ibn al-Harith's contribution to the battle of Badr, Ali ibn Abu Talib's contribution to the battle of Badr, Bilal ibn Ribah's contribution to the battle of Badr

Article topic is not notable on its own. Dr Gangrene 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar ibn Yasir's contribution to the battle of Badr

Non-notable topic. Dr Gangrene 14:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Battle of Badr is non notable? Take a look and you will see that all participants in the battle have a similar page. The page need to be expanded, not deleted. -striver

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muawwaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Muaaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Umayah ibn Khalaf's contribution to the battle of Badr, Walid ibn Utba's contribution to the battle of Badr, Obaidah ibn al-Harith's contribution to the battle of Badr, Ali ibn Abu Talib's contribution to the battle of Badr, Bilal ibn Ribah's contribution to the battle of Badr

Article topic is not notable on its own. Dr Gangrene 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no vote recorded. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Basic topics and subpages

I'm not sure what to make of this... this page links to several dozen subpages, e.g. Wikipedia:Biology basic topics and Economics basic topics (which isn't even in Wikispace, and is already converted to a redir). Those subpages list basic terms in that particular field. The whole idea is that this allows us to list basic terms that require articles. The point is, however, that those terms (being basic) already have articles. So the entire system is bascially a list of articles that we want and we already have. The result, among others, is to make Category:Wikipedia missing topics filled with things that aren't missing. So do we have any reason to keep these content-less and sort-of misleading lists? Abstain. Radiant_>|< 14:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody But Microsoft

Pseudolinguistics of no notability. Only used on ZDNet. Delete. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_14&oldid=20996298"