Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 29

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Outlanderssc (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 29 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

August 29

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Revert War

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RENNtech

Non-notable company. It's local to Lake Park, Florida, according to the web site. dbenbenn | talk 00:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've added links (found easily with a quick google) to support the assertions of being covered in major auto magazines. These guys aren't just your corner hotrod shop; they charge big money for their tuned Benzes, and the biggest magazines in the business have written about their products. If those who voted delete are still watching and would care to reconsider, I think we could safely remove this from VfD as being a definite keeper. Friday (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage in major auto magazines. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:29, 30 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 delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Foudation

As near as I can tell, this is an Animal Crossing clan. The forum they're advertising has 11 members. —Cryptic (talk) 00:54, 29 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 rewrite. The copyvio aspect has already been dealth with. -Splash 21:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenauts

Bandcruft, improperly linked external pictures. Delete Andrew pmk | Talk 01:10, 29 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 copyvio, deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zolo Music

Possible copyright violation. Cannot verify this, so wondering if this article can be removed through a vfd instead. Has been outstanding since Aug. 3rd 2005. HappyCamper 01:11, 29 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 --Tony SidawayTalk 03:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F'sho

Mispronunciation of "for sure". That's it. Denni☯ 01:37, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 01:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Conquering Chemistry

Please don't tell me that textbooks are the next inherently notable thing. Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted already. Woohookitty 11:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Long Pool

Subject is a non-notable community swimming pool. Sounds like a neat place to work from the in-depth staff bios, but sadly not encyclopedic. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:50, 29 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. Woohookitty 11:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsamaidis

Short article on a surname, no notable examples given, nothing of note to be found on the web. See Talk:Tsamaidis for a note I have placed there. BillC 02:07, 29 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. Woohookitty 11:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gleneagle Secondary School

OrphanSchool with virtually no little possibility of growing beyond what it is now. Delete. Alr 02:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Weak keep. This whole schools thing is just rediculous, IMHO. Alr 14:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are in BIIIIG trouble, AlR - here they come! Denni☯ 02:33, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
What did I do? This one, unlike most, is an orphan. Alr 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of previous debate over schools (see Wikipedia:Schools). Many have been VfD'd in the past, but most were kept. Jaxl | talk 03:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the problem with schools. If someone de-orphaned the article, I might be enclined to change my vote. Alr 03:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd place it in a sub-list in List of schools in Canada myself, but it only has a list for schools starting with "A". Maybe just place it in the main list for now? Jaxl | talk 03:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been listed alongside another school in the same district, School district 43, British Columbia. Wikipedia is slowly but surely expanding its schools coverage and sometimes you can see the dots join up like this. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:14, 29 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 was delete. Sango123 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people widely considered eccentric

This list is unmaintanable, inherently POV, inherently unverifiable, mostly unsourced and has been constantly metastasizing since its inception. It is less of an encyclopedia article and more of a sort of stream-of-consciousness laundry list of names of people that any editor has ever personally considered to be strange. It's an eyesore. The result of the previous AfD was "no consensus". Nandesuka 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is pure original research because it at the very heart based upon an admittedly arbitrary criteria. Lists based on arbitrary criteria, particularly criteria determined by Wikipedia contributors, need to go. Beyond that, there is the long standing lack verifiability around this list.--Isotope23 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per - by now - just about everyone. Sandstein 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is Delete. If kept, move all the unsourced entries to the article's Talk page—which at this point is all of them, effectively blanking the article. State at the top of the article that entries are to be inserted only if accompanied by source citations, meeting reliable source guidelines, which describe the person as "eccentric," using that word. The list then becomes a list of people who have been called eccentric, with source citations showing who called them that. Ideally enough of the source should be quoted so the reader can judge whether the person meets the reader's own criterion for eccentricity. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2006 (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 Delete, should not have been relisted. Radiant_>|< 07:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Day of my Capture

Not notable web page (alexa: rank 1,599,879). Nothing links to this page (google search), promotion. feydey 16:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn website vanity. --Etacar11 02:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could someone please explain that because It's not a popular webpage, the article should be deleted? and I don't understand how I am being vain, If I had stated eg.The best show in the world, nothing is better.etc, I would consider that as vain.--Tutacanaras 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that Wikipedia is not a directory of website and consider reading WP:VAIN. Since nothing links to the site according to google, and Alexa seems to indicate it doesn't get much visitors, we need more evidence to show that this site is actually popular. - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • It does not get many visitors but It's an article about the program, Not the website. This is an encyclopedia of everything, And this is a program.P.S: The website was put there to show that the show exists. You can remove the link if you wish.--Tutacanaras 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi there. It is a common misconception that WP is "an encyclopedia of everything." This isn't true. WP is a free encyclopedia that is being written as a wiki, but it does not accept every possible contribution. You might like to look at some of the policies and guidelines that govern the acceptability of articles. If you're looking for a place that will accept articles on nearly everything, try Everything2.com.—Encephalon | ζ  07:03:11, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
relisting for more discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Many newbies seem to be confused by accusations of vanity. I understand that Wikipedia uses a special, non-common definition for the term. In Wikipedia, "vanity" means that the article was created by its subject, a friend of the subject, or a member of the subject (in case of organisations) but no one else knows or cares about it. It does not necessarily mean that the article praises the subject. In fact, an article insulting its subject might still be vanity. I propose some sort of explanatory page about the term vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. DES (talk) 03:31, 29 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 delete contents and redirect. Woohookitty 11:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sos

Not encyclopedic, no discernable subject, never even explains who or what "sos" is, and follows with some of the most disjointed, incomprehensible gibberish I have ever seen. Section headers are incomprehensible, even after reading the text under them. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 29 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Gungan/Basic pidgin

Delete. Part fancruft, part original research. Short list of "translations" from Jar Jar-speak into English. android79 03:35, August 29, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macellarius

If it is so secret, how can it be verifiable? Delete unless a better source than "rumor" is cited and confirmed. DES (talk) 04:15, 29 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malarky

Slang term of UK (?) origin. Eddie.willers 04:34, 29 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Jernehed

Doesn't seem to be of particular note outside Scandinavia. He's just 17 - how noteworthy can a soccer player be at that age? Eddie.willers 04:47, 29 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City Metropolitan Airport

I have thought long & hard about this one.

  1. Firstly, the airport's name and IATA code are wrong. I believe the author is talking about the 'Benito Juarez International Airport', IATA code: MEX.
  2. Secondly, MEX is not in the Top 10 of world's busiest airports and certainly NOT the busiest in Latin America (that honour belongs to Juan Santamaria in Costa Rica).
  3. Thirdly, there is no information other than a list of airlines and destinations allegedly operating from the airport. Both lists are incomplete, inaccurate and inconsistent. There are no verifiable sources given.
  4. And, finally, yes..I do live in Mexico. Eddie.willers 05:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Redirect to Benito Juarez International Airport. Alr 05:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Alr, you have two votes on the page, both at 0535.—Encephalon | ζ  07:50:23, 2005-08-29 (UTC)[reply]

You, are, on looking more closely, quite correct. This should be deleted. The facts about it are mostly relating to Benito Juárez International Airport. Trollderella 08:04, 29 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. I'll tag it for {{{expansion}}} and move it.-Splash 00:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau st michelle

Vanity page. Andrew pmk | Talk 05:15, 29 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unholy Death

Delete nn band. Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC, no allmusic, 8 google hits for "unholy death" "Tim Schlicht". TheMidnighters 05:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Beg to differ: The band has broken up, so which would mean that the band's google prescense or ALLMusic wouldn't have anything to show. User:MrThomas

Bands that disbanded before Allmusic's creation are still documented (they go as far back as the 1920's), and you must agree that many bands which did not exist before Google still manage to produce hundreds/thousands of hits. Regardless, they still don't meet WP:MUSIC. Sorry, it's just a standard that needs to be maintained. --TheMidnighters 03:30, 31 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 DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing for completeness. -Splash 00:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever

This discussion is now at Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion (and has also been closed as "speedy keep"). Uncle G 12:29:09, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Physical culture. The debate is slightly unclear, but it appears the capitalization issue was only discovered toward the end. Given Capitalistroadster's addition to the lower-cased version, and the weakness of the content as it stands, I'll redirect it. -Splash 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Culture

The Bjelke-Petersen School of Physical Culture has 180 clubs in Eastern Australia. Does this make it notable or is it just advertising? Note. The text is a direct copyvio from the school's website but since it was probably they who posted it, I think we should deal with the notability first. -- RHaworth 06:42:48, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Andrew McMahon. Rob Church Talk | Desk 19:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew mcmahon

Lead singer in a non-notable band. Possible vanity article. Weak delete. — JIP | Talk 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to keep and cleanup based on User:Halo's and User:Capitalistroadster's comments. — JIP | Talk 09:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed again to redirect as per User:Halo. — JIP | Talk 10:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lead singer with a well-known band within the US. MTV News reports that he has been diagnosed with leukemia and that his side project Mannequin was preparing to release an album. This arguably makes him notable beyond Something Corporate see MTV News Article. [3] Redirect per Halo. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Please don't nominate to VfD any obviously wrongly-titled page. Move first. Then backlinks are picked up, or, as in this case, an actual page into which to merge. Nominating without moving first wastes time. Charles Matthews 10:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just redirect and be done with it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, August 29, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bertel king

Obvious vanity page. Probably some teenage kid writing ShareWare games out of his bedroom. Just like I used to do. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 29 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Montana

I don't believe this is a real sporting term. The article reads like a personal attack. Delete unless verified. — JIP | Talk 07:31, 29 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. See talk page for commentary on rationale. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Schools in Oregon

Page was created by new editor, whose only other page edit was to the Willamette Ballet Academy. At best, move to List of Dance Schools in Oregon, but I was under the impression that WP:NOT a directory. --Alan Au 07:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who's interested in writing or improving articles. I guess there are not very many of those hanging out at vfd? Trollderella 19:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not about dance schools in Oregon, at least I'm not. If you think it's worthy of being altered in the way you outlined than alter it, you'd likely also change some votes. Otherwise, please just vote on the article as it stands not on what you hope the article might someday become. If the time arrives that someone is knowledgeable enough to write a comprehensive article on dance schools in Oregon, they would have my happy support in doing so. Until then, this is a meaningless directory. Soltak |

Talk 19:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What an incredibly bitchy thing to say. Who the fuck are you to tell this person what they can and can't say? Fuck off and get a life!
In general, if an article appears to have potential, it should be kept. Most wikipedia articles start off as stubs and such, and people wander in off the internet to fix them. Sdedeo 20:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with stubs, if written correctly they're great. The problem is this article isn't a stub, it's a list of links. While the possibility might exist for an actual article to be written on dance schools in Oregon, this isn't it. I can start an article about my non-notable local councilman because, potentially, he could become a senator. Potential isn't the issue. Soltak | Talk 21:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I'm sorry you find my aspirations for this article inapropriate. Trollderella 20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So inconsistency in policy and governing of Wikipedia is fine by you? This list of dance schools in Oregon is not advertising, as it doesn't contain any contact information about the listed schools, nor mentions anything about the schools other than the fact that they are in Oregon. All this page does is link to pages within the Wikipedia database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.10 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 1 September 2005
      • If you think that similar articles shouldn't be here, then by all means list them for deletion, but please peruse WP:POINT. Zoe 18:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Inconsistency is fine by me. Whenever there is no perfectly "bright line" and decisions must be made by human judgement, there will be inconsistency whenever things fall close to the borderline. If a cop stops you for speeding it is not usually helpful to tell the judge that there were other drivers going faster. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • But then we're not in a court of law talking about a speeding ticket, are we? No. We're on wikipedia talking about the fact that this is all subjective and up to the whims of a clique of wikipedia editors who for some strange reason think the list of fictional planets on Futurama are more deserving of mention than the very real dance schools in the very real state of Oregon. Trekkie convention, anyone? And on the topic of speeding tickets: if it can be proven that the police officer was indeed singling a person out it is actually feasible that charges could be dropped. This sort of thing happens all the time. Maybe someone can make a list for you about the times it has happened, and then you can request the list be deleted as it relates to something in the real world and not a cartoon, hence it is not substantial enough for you.
    • I apologize for wikipedia being inconsistent and wasting your time. Kappa 20:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. To the anon commenter(s): did you mean to vote "Keep/Rename" then? We could debate the merits of consistency indefinitely, but this really isn't the place for that discussion. --Alan Au 05:47, 2 September 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FlexCast

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

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedily deleted. Attack page. --03:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Wilsan tjiawi

The article claims that he starred in more than 100 movies. No movie-related Google hits though. It seems that this page is a joke. Sietse 09:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, I even tried variations of Wilsan/Wilson/Willson just in case :) --inks 09:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Delete it already. same IP doesnt mean same person. either internet cafe or hiding behind proxy

I'm speedying this - "Wilsan Tjiawi" is a student at the Nanyang Technological University, where the IP that created this article originates from. I am satisfied that it is an attack page, and will delete it immediately. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:54, 1 September 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. Paul August ☎ 01:35, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

SCHNAPPPI

I'm not sure what this is about, but if it's what it purports to be, then this would surely be a copyvio anyway. Bovlb 09:27:24, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by TheCoffee, Zscout370 as recreation of previously deleted content. Titoxd 05:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Congress - IT Cell

This page has been Vfded before with a consensus to delete. Non-notable department of a notable organisation Botsie 09:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, department of a notable organisation. Kappa 10:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    • But is the department notable enough to deserve an article for itself? Seems to be just vanity by an officer of the org and the author of Rivaji. If the article was anything beyond a list of office bearers, I'd say merge with Indian National Congress, but the way it is I don't see any value in it. --Botsie 10:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that the Congress Party of India is definitely notable; but this article is on the "IT Cell" within it, and notability is not established. It is simply a series of names. Sliggy 12:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - has been deleted before and the information in the re-created article is the same as in the old one Vino s 12:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a politically biased nomination. The nominator is Indian, but he calls the governing party of India "non-notable". Osomec 13:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A close perusal of the article will make clear that this nomination does not refer to Congress Party (which of course must be kept), but is about an affiliated/subsidiary organisation. Sliggy 14:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I voted Congress if you must know. However, the article has failed to establish notability for it's IT Cell. --Botsie 09:21, August 30, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rivaji

133 Google hits for name. Sample from text shows obvious self-promotion: "Rivaji is not new to politics and Congress. he is a born Congressman." delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: +5/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:02, August 27, 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. Paul August ☎ 01:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Moldo

Was tagged as speedy, but I say a druid organization with several branches within the UK would be notable and quite hard to find online. I'll drop it of here instead for your opinions. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, August 29, 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. Paul August ☎ 01:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nintendrone

Neologism, not encyclopedic, dicdef. Bovlb 09:45:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 01:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Rogers Cadenhead

Was tagged as a vanity speedy: it is most likely a vanity article; the IP of the editor is the same as the subjects home (Jacksonville, FL) suggesting it was created by the subject or a friend or relative (info on ip location is from: [4]). and was said in another tag not to assert notability when the article states, he sits on the RSS Advisory Board, registered benedictxvi.com several weeks before the pope was named and also did some reporter work. If you take that together, I'd say calling this non-notable is a bit hasty. Keep, unless someone can prove the RSS Advisory Board doesn't exist or has no real importance in the computer world. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Marginal Delete. The RSS board is notable, and important as an organisation, but its members are not necessarily notable (and don't need to be). The books are not especially notable. Given that some Wikipedians have similar accomplishments, I'm not fully convinced he merits an entry.--inks 10:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not recommended but if they come up with a reasonably neutral and factual article it shouldn't be deleted just because of its source. If someone else had made it, would the article look so different? Kappa 18:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is pretty non-notable stuff as far as I can tell. Writing a book itself does not mean the person should be included. I looked up the books on Amazon and their sales rankings are #30,000 and #80,000. The website isn't very notable and the RSS board may or may not be important enough to cary the article. Mainly, I think this is an auto-biographical vanity page, only edited by a single author who's IP address comes from an ISP in Jacksonville, where the author and subject both live. --Quasipalm 13:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Not as important as the author seems to think, but above the line of notability for me (author of a few non-vanity books.) Sdedeo 14:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cadenhead is known for his RSS work, cruel.com and the Pope Benedict antic. Article could be beefed up, but he is a well-known web pundit and writer. Jessamyn
  • Keep; he's had some books published, and I have heard of him in numerous articles when Pope Benedict was announced for the website. Ral315 17:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Despite the author's admission that this is vanity, the subject is still notable. I reaffirm my keep vote. Ral315 22:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • This comes across as a self-promoting, vanity page. I appreciate the arguments iterated above, particularly the noteworthiness of the various projects, but the fact is that letting vanity pages stand withers the credibility of Wikipedia and mocks the efforts of those who contribute to it. If another editor wishes to create a page about this guy, I will vote to keep. But since I accept the evidence that this is self-authored as convincing, I vote Delete on principle.Dottore So 17:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • isn't Jacksonville sort of big though? I agree that it's bad precedent if the guy authored it himself, but do we know that or just strongly assume it? If people think it's a keepable article except for the author, I'd happily do a rewrite of it, or re-create it, however this sort of thing usually works. Jessamyn 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Trollderella 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Sdedeo. Meelar (talk) 17:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; Cadenhead is notable and the stuff in the article is interesting and relevant. It answers exactly the kinds of questions somebody would have who was looking up Cadenhead in the Wikipedia. betsythedevine 21:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jachin 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the little stuff adds up to enough of notability. Gamaliel 09:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is established within the article. Hall Monitor 22:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm probably notable enough for inclusion here by virtue of the RSS board, 21 computer books, and brief papal namespace infamy, but I did write my own Wikipedia biography as an experiment, and for reasons I detail today on my weblog, I am somewhat eager to see this vote end with my deletion. rcade, 31 August 2005
I knew it.  ;-) Don't feel bad, I don't think I deserve a wikipedia article either. --Quasipalm 17:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this admission, can we resubmit to VfD and have it properly voted on as a vanity page? Much of the above misses the point. Dottore So 18:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I object to redoing this VfD. rcade seems to be confused as to the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about doing a clever blog post and then letting everyone else tidy up after it has suited your purpose. I am really very tired of this. We all knew it was a probably vanity when we voted the first time around. My evaluation of the article as a weak keep stands; the basic principle that article subjects do not dictate the terms of their inclusion should as well. Sdedeo 19:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment again. Reading rcade's blog post, it seems that he was acting in good faith both in creating and later voting delete on his article. However, my vote still stands and I still object to redoing the VfD; the community has looked at the article, found the subject notable, and that's all that needs to be said. Sdedeo 19:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to echo the sentiments of Sdedeo. My vote is based upon the merits of the article, not who created it. Hall Monitor 20:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What Sdedeo and HallMonitor said. Being eager to have a wikipedia article about you has zero bearing on the question of whether or not there should be a wikipedia article about you. The point of Wikipedia is to let people find information about stuff that has some reasonable notability. betsythedevine 11:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Vanity_page Problems with vanity articles:

The most significant problem with vanity article is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors. Additionally, they are often "experimental" articles to which the author never returns. The quality of a Wikipedia article is often presumed to be proportional to the number of edits, so if an article is doomed to be a one-edit article, it should be deleted.

In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the User namespace rather than deleted.

Another danger is inherent in auto-biographical articles. Users might write articles pertaining to their own work. While the authors of such articles might not consider them "vanity" articles, they are in violation of the soft policy against writing articles on one's own accomplishments.

  • I don't think I saw this page when poking around Wikipedia to see if there was a prohibition against autobiography. That reference to a soft policy isn't as clear as it could be -- does that mean there's wiggle room and it's a matter of judgment? In any case, if Wikicities accepts my proposal for a non-famous biography wiki, it should make this particular editing issue easier to resolve. Moving a self-promotional or dubious biography to another wiki should be easier for contributors to accept than a deletion. rcade, 31 August 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

(Title Pending)

Vantiy. A webcomic, no evidence of notability (although the title is hard to Google). sjorford (?!) 10:53, 29 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. Paul August ☎ 02:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Mutney

Patent nonsense William Avery 10:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is whimsical nonsense. 'Parlucknab' Googles only to thsi article. Eddie.willers 11:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can't believe I missed that. Still, I'd love to see some more info on mutney and how (non)sensical it is. Just because the company fails to google, doesn't mean Mutney will either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Puhleaze! This article is total nonsense! 16th century monastic recipe indeed! 'Mango chutney' (a mixture of tamarinds, mangoes and spices) hails from India. Why would anyone try to 'improve' it by the addition of mustard and/or stilton cheese? DELETE Eddie.willers 11:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chutney is a 19th century word, according to COD. Stilton Cheese is no preservative! William Avery 11:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't believe it exists, based on the fact that if I google for 'mutney "mango chutney"' I get few (if any) valid references. Good VFD. Halo 11:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yep, those are pretty good reasons. (I was just being careful). - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable unless good verifiable evidence is presented prior to expiration of discussion. The "Smutney" remark is, I think, the giveaway that this is a joke, making it a borderline-speedy as newbie test. (This is probably not a good time to mention that "Mutney" was the narrator's wife's pet-name for the narrator in H. G. Wells' novel Tono-Bungay. Although I am an H. G. Wells fan I think an article on the pet-name for a character in a novel would quality as fancruft). Dpbsmith (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interestingly, Parlucknab seems to be quite unknown on Google, except for a couple of encyclopedia links. Looks like a partially successful hoax to me. Groeck 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but it's funny as hell. good one. SaltyPig 00:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN heh... cute... Roodog2k 00:48, 31 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. Paul August ☎ 03:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Granta

Reluctantly I name this pub for deletion. It is near the river and has got a nice view from its two floors. The entry freely admits that it has nothing much to speak for it. It hasn't got an illustrious history or particularly good or poor beer. Really, I like the place, I do, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a grab-bag of data. Pilatus 11:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/disambig: Make it a 3-choice disambig page, with only a link to the place the pub is located (but no article for the pub itself). This shouldn't be considered for delete, because it needs to either be a re-direct for Granta (like it was) or a disambig page, which includes two or three entries (which it almost is). --rob 12:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions recommend to drop the initial article. The river and the publisher are both called "Granta". Pilatus 12:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I took a quick look, and am not clear of what part of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions you're refering to. I thought I read the GFDL requires us to keep the old edit history of article, if the content there-in was used elsewhere (in a re-direct/merge or a move without copying history). It appears there is content that predates Granta. So, if you don't wish to do a disambig, why not just revert back to the previous re-direct. Seems quick and easy. It's pretty normal/legit to have a re-direct from a possible (though wrong and/or obsolete) spelling of a place. --rob 12:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is what I was talking about: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Incompatible_votes. It explains why "Merge to Example and Delete" is invalid. Basically, any old history has to be kept, no matter what, if any of the old content found it's way into the new article. I interpret that to mean, we can't delete this old article. Now the "merge(?)/redirect" part was done a long time ago, and we can't now to the delete part. I'm new to this, and can't say for certain. --rob 12:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Avoid_the_definite_article_.28.22the.22.29_and_the_indefinite_article_.28.22a.22.2F.22an.22.29_at_the_beginning_of_the_page_name. Granta is the publisher, and a stretch of the River Cam is are known as Granta. Those are in the right place. The Granta (also named correctly) is the entry on the pub, which I don't think should have a home in Wikipedia.
Thanks for the precise link, which I just read. I'm not sure we disagree. I'm saying there should be *no* pub article. I'm advocating The Granta *either* be a disambigation page or a re-direct page. But, not a "content" page. You're entirely correct, that there should be no "content" page called The Granta. Disambiguation and re-direct pages aren't subject to normal naming rules. In fact, their whole purpose is to move somebody from the wrong name, to the correct name. Also, I agree Granta and River Cam should stay in the same place. --rob 13:57, 29 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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gender roles in Islam

Almost entirely original research. The sources cited do not match the claims made. Any actual encyclopedic information on this subject can already be found on Women in Islam, which I would suggest this re-direct to. Irishpunktom\talk 11:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Admittedly as the guy who did most of the work I have an interest. But there is no original research. The sources do match the claims made. Much of the information here is not found on Women in Islam although a merger of parts is in the works. This call is totally premature given the work going on to fix the problems. A peer review would probably be the more sensible option. I urge people to read the article(s) for themselves. Lao Wai 12:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, after reading the article's talk page I'm detecting a whiff of bad faith here, to be honest. The article DOES need work, admittedly, and I'd support deletion if it can't be improved jamesgibbon 12:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your suggestion, I have been trying to work with this, I mean compare what the opening paragraph was like when I began work on it. Note too how Lao Wai constantly removes my request for citations, and constantly includes the allusion that all women of Medina were all Ansari (Helpers of Muhamad) - That is obviously untrue, but he keeps adding it anyway. [6], [7], [8]. Note also how The Source he uses to justify his assertion "Obviously this is a vision of Heaven that is more likely to appeal to men. Eternally virgin dark-eyed Houris are unlikely to appeal to many women" says nothing of the sort, in fact is says almost the opposite ("The life of women in Jannah will be as pleasant and happy as the life of men. Allah is not partial to any gender. He created both of them and He will take care of both of them according to their needs and desires. Let us all work to achieve the Jannah and then, in sha’ Allah, we will find there what will satisfy all of us fully."). Anyway, besides that, anything of any merit is already dealt with in Women in Islam, a more stable and more Accurate and more NPOV piece.--Irishpunktom\talk 13:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Look this is not the place for a slanging match over this. I flatly deny saying what you have just said I said. If you want to discuss this in a civilised manner I suggest we take it to the Talk Page where it belongs. Again I urge anyone who cares to read the relevant pages. Lao Wai 15:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this article should be about both gender roles in Islam, not about women in Islam. Trollderella 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of this article would suggest would not have a place in women in Islam?--Irishpunktom\talk 15:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or delete without merge. This vote may not be taken as any form of 'keep'. The scant references in the article (one of them is a link to Google!!) do not persuade me that this is not-original research and here is not the place for such. Get good references in there, and I'll reconsider. Otherwise, it needs to go, per WP:NOR. If this can be rewritten as a proper article, it can of course stay. -Splash 19:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your vote means. You cannot redirect without keeping the content, unless you mean delete then recreate a redirect? Trollderella 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can! You can simply blank a page and turn it into a redirect. That complies with the GFDL. The only thing you can't do is delete after copy-paste merging. -Splash 23:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The topic is great but I think whole article needs thorough revision in terms of contents as well as style. In current form, I beleive it should be deleted.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Paul August ☎ 03:16, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Evan McKinney

Non-famous vanity article. Google search for Evan McKinney + keyword techno gives just one return. andy 11:57, 29 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. Paul August ☎ 03:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

AY Overdrive

Non-notable band. Al 12:43, August 29, 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. Paul August ☎ 03:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Open Source Winamp Stuff

WP:NOT a repository of links. Loganberry (Talk) 13:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Useful it may or may not be, but policy is that "collections of external links or Internet directories" are not suitable for Wikipedia; see the WP:NOT link above. Loganberry (Talk) 13:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Anybody got an idea where to put this?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.29 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 31 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Roxx

I am placing a VFD on this and, probably, other articles concerning porn 'stars' simply because, all too often, there is confusion between 'notability' and 'notoriety' - this is a perfect example.

  • Lara Roxx, Darren James and their ilk are 'notorious'. That is, they are known, but in an unfavourable manner and in a restricted circle. They cannot be considered as 'notable' or 'noteworthy' as they have not added anything to the sum of human intellectual achievement or to the human condition. Nor are they particularly striking or worthy in their achievement.
  • They cannot be considered as 'actors' other than in the sense of their being participants in an act. They are not 'theatrical performers' in any sense - being filmed whilst having sex does not require any communicable skill.
  • Tough on Lara, but catching AIDS in your line of work does not make you notable either. I am sure that if one dug around, there are cases of medical professionals catching AIDS in their line of work - folk who are probably a good deal more 'socially useful' too (dons flamproof suit quickly).
  • Wikipedia can, does, and should have entries for 'notorious' persons (eg:Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer) who may be considered notable for their actions, the effect of those actions and the amount of interest garnered by those actions in a general social sense.
    • In the case of pornography, and with reference to the above paragraph, Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner are good examples of those who may be considered notorious and notable.

Let the Games begin! Eddie.willers 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I don't buy the distinction between between notable and notorious wrt the wikipedia standards for inclusion. "Adding to the sum of human intellectual achievement or human condition" seems to me to be a weasly way of excluding people whose behavior doesn't please the nominator; that is, it is an inherent POV value judgment. Therefore, there is no proposed valid reason for this to be on the table for deletion, so keep. Brighterorange 13:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Made the news, hence notable. Halo 13:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would also like to say that it sounds like you are trying to use VFD to push an agenda, which I don't think is a good idea. Whatsmore, if we used your method of saying that someting is notable, we wouldn't have pages on murderers etc either because they haven't done anything other than "kill people" which has gone on for thousands of years. I don't think someone necessarily has to have done anything intelligent to be noteworthy as long as they are somewhat known in their field. Halo 13:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eddie, please do not do this. This will be an annoying experience for all. Sdedeo 14:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable. "Notoriety" is a POV on this Sliggy 14:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even I heard about this. A 60 day work stoppage in the porn industry is notable. Klonimus 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pah! Comments noted and VFD nomination withdrawn - having no wish to provoke "an annoying experience for all". Still, POV issues aside, I do not believe that porn 'stars' merit an encyclopeadic article. Eddie.willers 15:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one has some minor interest per the start of the article. That does not apply to most porn-stars however, and I would be interested in a selective VfDing of those that are non-notable. Simply VfDing them all would not be appropriate however. -Splash 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's keep in mind that "lack of notability" has never been accepted by consensus as sufficient grounds for deletion of articles. We're not dealing with the assistant editor of a high school newspaper here. We're talking about perfomers who appear in movies that are widely distributed. Many of them also appear in magazines that are also widely distributed. This makes then public figures, and therefore worthy of a Wikipedia article, as long as it provides some relevant information beyond "Candy Blossom is a porn star." The "porn stars aren't notable" argument smacks of a bit of prurience. In an encyclopedia that has articles on fictional characters, TV show episodes, and reality show participants, it is hard to justify deleting articles on performers in a popular, mass market form of entertainment. Zeromacnoo 19:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criteria outlined by Eddie Willers are NPOV and should be irrelevant to considering biographies. According to WP:Bio the relevant criteria is "Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more." Ms Roxx meets these criteria. Capitalistroadster 20:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't buy the distinction between notorious and notable. Whether or not everything the proposer says is true, they're still notable and worth putting in Wikipedia. (And the fact is, much of what the proposer says, I consider to be nonsense and wrongfully judgemental, and I'm sure I could find fields of interest that I consider to be without skills and merely notorious among a restricted field that the proposer would disagree with.)--Prosfilaes 20:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked at the article, I have to wonder what you were thinking. Yes, being the first person in four years to get AIDS in the porn industry and prompting potential government intrusion or changes from within to avoid government intrustion is notable.--Prosfilaes 22:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as is (in)famous with many people, it's perfectly notable. Notorious would be a subset of notability in any case. Further, I remember a VfD on every Victoria Cross holder, since Victoria Cross awardees are imminently more notable than Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, ever CMH holder should also be VfD'd because they are inherently less notable. So... if being notorious is not good enough, we should VfD "Al Capone", "Caligula", "Nero", "Pol Pot", "Papa Doc" Duvalier, "Robispiere", "Elizabeth I", "Ivan the Terrible", "Vlad the Impaler", "Jesse James", "Billy the Kid", "Ulysses S. Grant", "Heinrich Himmler", "Marilyn Monroe", "Martin Luther", "Copernicus", ... 132.205.3.20 20:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like what they do, but they are legally allowed to do it. Also, the inital "notable" vs. "notorious" argument implies a judgement, which is not what this is supposed to be about; it's about collecting information. Frankly, they are both "editorializing" in any context. Insisting someone is "notorious" as opposed to "notable" is forcing your values on this, this is not about that.

  • Keep It will be such an hypocresy to deny this element of our society and culture. If the article was written it is because somebody thinks the topic is interesting. At the end that is wikipedia a completely democratic source of information.
  • Keep Pornography is important in our society, and this should be reflected in Wikipedia too.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedied after moving to User:01asada -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

01asada

Article is a duplicate of clown. I cannot figure out the title either. Two google hits, it seems to be something Japanese. Unsure about whether this is a speedy so I'm bringing it to VFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Google hits appear to be for a review of a restaurant named Asada and a profile of a student named Taisuke Asada, and the 01 seems to be simply part of the html naming scheme for these pages. The page in question is unrelated to either of these. Yelyos 14:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. User should also be blocked as he's being abusive by removing VFD/Speedy delete messages Halo 14:07, 29 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. Paul August ☎ 03:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Milion

Delete. This article states that "The word Milion is the Roman term for the Greek Milos and is mentioned in Mathew 5". As it happens, the alleged Greek measuring unit Milos is a flower of fantasy

  • "1 diena: pirmadienis arba penktadienis (372 mylios / 595 km) Niujorkas - NIAGARos

kriokliai ... 3 diena: trečiadienis arba sekmadienis (432 mylios / 691 km) ..."

[9].

And Milion is simply the Greek name for the Roman mile, not a separate unit. An entirely misguided concept is not a good starting point, and the rest of the article consists of the usual rktect rants (see User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect). A redirect is not required; Wikipedia is not a Greek lexicon. -- Egil 14:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Milion is not the Greek name for the Roman unit because its Latin not Greek.
  • Milion is the Roman name for the Greek unit from which the Roman Milliare is derived.
  • You can raise the issue of what evidence is there that a Greek unit of 8 stadia = 1 (Roman name for it) milion existed?
  • The evidence is that the name the Romans chose for their mile was milliare.
  • In latin the milliare is differentiated from the milion or mylios
  • The Milion or Milos are the Greek units which were the source of the Roman mile.
  • The Greek Stadion was also the source of the Roman stadium.
  • This information comes from Vitruvius a Roman Architect.
  • In his "Ten Books of Architecture he tells us that the Romans got their units from the Greeks.
  • If you read his book you will discover why he says that.
  • Milion is not a misspelling for million, its not a flower,
  • its not original research, its just something you don't happen to know. Rktect 13:09, August 31, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lara language

A constructed language with a few problems. Firstly there is actually a language called Lara spoken by about 12,000 people in Indonesia [11] however this is not it. I can only find a handful of google hits associated with this particular language, and most of those are conlang websites that can be edited by the user. Also the author of this article readily admits on his talk page that he is the original author of the language in question. The other pages that are linked to from the article (Esperanto, Italian and Wikisource) were each started on 27th July, 25th August and 27th August respectively. I'm just not getting the impression from my research into this that it's that notable. Francs2000 | Talk 14:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable language not in common use. Rob Church Talk | Desk 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable; original research; silly --Quasipalm 15:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No sillier than many articles. I see that Google is still the main arbiter. 212.101.64.4 16:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Invented languages should be included if they are notable for academic (e.g., interesting and discussed example) or cultural (e.g., Klingon, etc.) reasons, even if those reasons are minor. No claim to notability exists here. Sdedeo 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a language to be notable it needs to have an impact on the world outside the home of its creator, i.e. having a significant and verifiable number of fluent speakers and/or being the subject of a rather extensive professional discussion, preferrably in printed media. A list of words, however long, should not be enough. However, there are obviously Wikipedians of a different opinion, which is why I'd like to urge anyone voting to delete this article to check out the straw poll being held at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes where an attempt is made to create general criteria for inclusion of constructed languages. This vote might very well end up with any language with X number of words, or even "a unique script"(!), being deemed worthy of a Wikipedia article. / Alarm 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please start by checking out the discussion about the draft policy proposal on Wikipedia:Conlangs and various subpages. I agree that some of the criteria some people have proposed are a bit silly, but you'll notice most if not all of the silly ones are getting a lot more oppose votes than support votes (oops, I used the word "vote"; Messrs. Bruning and Forrester are going to pile on to me...) even from the conlangers. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Mind, the long list on Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes and on Wikipedia:Conlangs/Alternative proposal should by no means by treated as a proposal of criteria, all of which can individually determine a language's notability. It's merely a collection of possible criteria proposed by individual people. The purpose of the whole discussion is merely to establish some objective criteria for conlang notability. As someone who cares for conlangs and to whom it is an important field of interest, I want a conlang section that is clean and of high quality; I do not want to be overly inclusive, and I definitely do not want articles about 1200 individual conlangs. To me, number of words and a unique script do not make a language notable. And yes, some of the proposed criteria are a bit sillyl. By the way, Alarm, I find it strange that you only urge "anyone voting to delete this article" and not those who want to keep it. I would agree with you if you urged "anybody", not just the deleters. --IJzeren Jan 13:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, but see the article I hope to start from Lara called Lara (language), and help solve disambig problems! Trollderella 17:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, made up non-languages would need to jump very high before they warrant an entry in a ssdgkdsfdssdj. (That's Splashian for 'encyclopedia'.) -Splash 19:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm very hesitant in this case, because indeed the language looks interesting and complete. The fact that the author of the language is also the author of the article (and also of the articles in other wikipedias) + the smallish number of ghits is decisive for me. --IJzeren Jan 05:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please not that this is the only Wikipedia. The word "wikipedia" is not a generic term. Zoe 07:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable language with no uptake or real recognition. Barneyboo 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for a conlang to be noteworthy, it needs a LOT of notoriety outside its circle, in the mass media, etc. Klingon, Esperanto, and Tolkien's works fulfill those criteria, almost nothing else does. Which is as it should be. --Agamemnon2 21:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or I'll make up a dozen languages and submit those as articles. Groeck 21:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jachin 22:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frlyrh, which is Delete in my personal constructed language which, by amazing coincidence, also happens to be called 'Lara'. Nandesuka 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable, original research, vanity. --Carnildo 23:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 02:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, or. --Etacar11 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as soon as there is a page for the natural language Lara this page will be quite harmless. Also, it is better written and more interesting than most conlang pages on wikipedia, in fact more interesting than quite a few stubs, so why not keep it?--Kaleissin 09:48:13, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
    • So if it's well written nonsense, the fact that it's nonsense means nothing to you? Fabulous, I'll go and write some now. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's your problem? There's got to be more worthwhile things to do than being rude to people. Please define nonsense while you're at it. --Kaleissin 12:22:25, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
        • My problem is your reason for saying (implied) keep - by your reasoning the article should be kept because it is well written, not because of its content. I can point to plenty of articles that are about notable content but just not well written - should they go? If I wrote beautiful prose about the contents of my trash should that stay? No, so if you believe the content should stay because you feel it is notable enough for Wikipedia then say that, don't confuse the issue by saying "it's well written so it should stay" -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's best having a page that is 2 out of 2. This one is 1 out of 2, but there are tons of pages that are 0 out of 2... After Kim Bruning's nuking of the conlang-vote page I'm not sure I'll ever bother to be explicit here again. No keep, no delete, means no vote right? Ergo no drive-by shooting. Whatever, it's academical now anyway. --Kaleissin 18:47:26, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
  • Delete Transwiki to the Conlang Wikicity and then delete from Wikipedia. Google search for {lara "constructed language"} [12] gets 42 hits but almost none of them relate to this particular conlang - most just have the personal name or surname "Lara" or a word in some other conlang with the form |lara| somewhere on the page. I see no evidence that this conlang has notability within the conlanger community, much less outside of it. Nor is it verifiable without original research, as apparently nobody has written about it yet besides the creator of the language. If in the course of years the language does become notable (aquires some speakers, a fairly large corpus, independent review and discussion in the secondary conlang literature, etc.) then any article about it should probably be titled Lara (constructed language) to distinguish it from Lara language, the natural language of Indonesia with the same name. But it is a non-stub article, fairly well written for a non-native speaker of English, and it's good content for the Conlang Wikicity. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that 80.127.232.138 has already copied the page to the Conlang Wikicity [13]. I have no objection to deleting this Wikipedia article at any time now. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe googling for {lara "constructed language"} is unfair, because you exclude anything that is not in English. In cases like this one (especially since the creator of the language is Italian) I much rather google for LANGUAGE NAME + SURNAME OF THE CREATOR. In this case, "lara" + "pedicelli" generates 72 ghits. --IJzeren Jan 13:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point; we should probably cover that and similar issues when treating the "gets at least N Google hits" criterion in the draft Conlang notability/verifiability policy.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. brenneman(t)(c) 00:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of places where driving while talking on a mobile phone is illegal

Hopelessly unmaintainable list. Rob Church Talk | Desk 15:06, 29 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 (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat Planet

advertising Melaen 15:12, 29 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 (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Champion of the Thames

It doesn't have the history of the Eagle, nor does have the traditional interior of the Queen's Head in Newton. Maybe the entry can go next door to Wikitravel, but it doesn't belong here. Pilatus 15:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The initial editor of that article thanks you warmly! (And you know I'm biased on Cambridge pubs so I'm staying out of it). Alf 19:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather put the Boat Race connection into the article on the Boat Race. The pub itself is a nasty indiscriminate undergraduate watering hole for the kids from Jesus. Pilatus 14:37, 30 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 (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shockwaveworld.com

Delete this isn't a yellow pages of current non-notable websites, nor is it a place for cheap advertising Grcampbell 16:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as obvious hoax. Contains several claims that are verifiably false. Never nominated for any oscars and Christopher Walken never appeared in it. - Mgm|(talk) 13:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yowl like a barse

This film is not included in IMDB's entry for Christopher Walken [14]. It was not nominated for an academy award in 1999 [15] or 2000 [16]. Googling and searching IMDB for the name of this film returns nothing. Notability not established; possible hoax. Sliggy 16:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

and "Tiff Risco" has been deleted by a previous Vote for Deletion [17] Sliggy 16:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
sorry, the above link is for a Tiff Risco "film", this is the link for Tiff Risco himself Sliggy 17:09, August 29, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etwaru

Delete, Vanity Article -- RB McLeroy 17:24, August 29, 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 Copyvio'd, tagged and bagged. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Pack

Fanny Pack is a non-notable vanity article about a high school band. (I'm sure UK readers will love the name of the band.) --Quasipalm 17:31, 29 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 (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden downturn of F5 tornadoes

This is not really appropriate as a stand-alone wikipedia article. It would be a candidate for merging, but it is not clear at all to me that there is even some kind of interesting sudden downturn to be spoken of. The article also lists F4 tornadoes, without apparent relevance. Mgcsinc 17:27, 29 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 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samstock Music Festival

Your average high school could draw more than 600 people to a concert. This is definitely a local event. Denni☯ 18:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dondy

Delete as self-promotion. FreplySpang (talk) 18:19, August 29, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technohavenot

Neologism Outlander 18:25, August 29, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_29&oldid=22115484"