Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 16

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Antaeus Feldspar (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 16 January 2005 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dogabatic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

January 16

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

Man-made disaster

  • Only a redirect to a category, which also may be removed. Ellywa 23:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, not particularly useful, since most things will be debatable anyway (how much of global warming is "man-made"?), in my opinion. --Spangineer ∞ 03:03, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • The wrong place for both. The category needs to be on WP:CfD, and the redirect on WP:RfD (where it has now been listed). The category still isn't listed on CfD, though. Noel (talk) 15:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Vacuum c 16:16, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ubiquitous They

  • Doesn't establish notability.Silly Dan 00:54, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • All the information found about them at [1] leads me to vote Delete. --Spangineer ∞ 02:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, not as ubiquitous as they would have hoped. Delete vanity. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:02, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Greaser 01:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 Jan 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 to delete.

The funny

  • I'm sure the two comedy groups listed are hilarious, but that's not unique enough to warrant an article. (Besides, the phrase "bring the funny" is probably more closely associated with The West Wing or the webcomics weblog Websnark.)Silly Dan 01:12, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, same rationale as with Ubiquitous They. --Spangineer ∞ 02:37, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. Also too generic a term to be re-branded into something specific. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Haha not funny. Delete. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:05, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable... - Greaser 01:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 Jan 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.

The Voices in Your Head

  • Again, sounds like they're funny, but they aren't notable (not to mention defunct).Silly Dan 01:18, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, what Megan said. --Spangineer ∞ 02:39, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • A voice in my head is telling me to delete and lobotomise. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:10, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity by Strand... - Greaser 01:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 Jan 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Finis White

I'm sure he's a very nice person and does good work in the Scouts but he doesn't seem notable to me. Dbiv 01:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Oh, man, no offence intended, but I kinda feel sorry for this guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable vanity, not notable, though I'm not sure why reaching eagle scout status is reason to feel sorry for someone. --Spangineer ∞ 02:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Khanartist 02:43, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, "be prepared" != "put your CV on Wikipedia". Delete. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, definite vanity... - Greaser 01:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this vanity has been fought on the Eagle Scout page for a while and now on the List of Eagle Scouts as well Cavebear42 07:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. This has nothing to do with vanity!!!!! NOTHING!!!! I worked on this article from scratch as the boy's leader. He is a very notable young man. Just because you have not heard of him does not mean he is not noteworthy. Who are you to decide? If this article is deleted, I will replace it. I do not appreciate these negative comments on this accomplished young man. His story is an encouragement to young people everywhere. I don't understand this site at all. You allow criminals like serial killers and rapists to be listed, disgracing the honor of the Eagle badge; but you want to take issue with the addition of articles about accomplished youths who are making a difference in this world and living up to the Eagle Scout honor! HE IS NOTABLE!!!!!

User: Sistertina aka Tina Reed, MA, LPC (scout leader) 20 Jan 2005 --Sistertina 13:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notability is not an endorsement. It's recognition of the fact that someone has done something significant. Becoming an Eagle Scout is not, in itself, significant. If this article is deleted, it will stay deleted unless and until the individual concerned becomes notable. I had thought that being in the Scouts was about growing up. Dbiv 15:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with you. This young man has done more than something significant, in addition to making Eagle. And making Eagle alone is significant You would know that if you have ever been in the scouts. As a veteran leader, I know what I am taking about. I have been involved in scout leading for over a decade! I support this article and will continue to support and edit it. And, for the record, these boys are more grown up than most youths will ever be! --Sistertina 15:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If he's done something significant, then what is it, and why isn't it on the page? As a matter of fact I was in the scouts in Britain for a time. According to Eagle Scout, 4% of Scouts become Eagle Scouts, and given that there are millions who join, that must still be a large number of people. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base at index 6. Dbiv 15:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finis White's achievements are listed in his bio; and I am in the process of expanding it to include his recent contributions to society. For the record, its 2% who earn the Eagle, not 4. These stats are reported by the Boy Scouts of America in all of scouting's literature and leader manuals! --Sistertina 15:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the BSA website there have been 110 million Boy Scouts since 1910. If 2% made Eagle Scout, that's more than 2 million. Please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies and say whether you honestly believe this biography fits, bearing in mind that a Google search brings only 3 hits. I did say at the top that I'm sure he's a very nice man, but he just ain't notable. Dbiv 15:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lupo 14:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, being an Eagle Scout does not qualify one as notable. john k 15:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Sillydragon 19:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reasons previously stated. Segekihei 21:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am an Eagle Scout, and am absurdly not-notable. It is indeed a fine achievement for a young man to reach that rank, but the Wikipedia is not here to document people who have achieved wonderful things. Tuf-Kat 02:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:24, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tarafa

Not notable. Two hits, both at blogspot.com. Niteowlneils 02:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Khanartist 02:42, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, pretty poor humor. Oh, and not notable. --Spangineer ∞ 02:43, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable (but hygenic). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't even think he's remarkable, which is why I vote delete. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:00, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's amazing how many people see themselves as the second coming; plus swearing doesn't make an average person notable. - Greaser 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This may well be more significant than anybody realizes. Livornese

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:25, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vagary

This is a completely inaccurate dicdef which is not worth even moving to Wiktionary. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. May not actually be wrong. It's from the Latin root vagari, which means wanderer, as are vagabond and vagrant. While I've never actually heard the word used in this particular manner, it may be simply uncommon or archaic. If real, should be moved to wiktionary. Khanartist 02:52, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
    vagari (a deponent verb) means 'to wander', and AFAIK it has no noun form. Online dictionaries [2] [3] don't give any meaning similar to this; I'll check the OED when I get the chance. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is actually wrong, nonetheless. Uncle G 03:44, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • I'd say dicdef, transwiki iff it was correct. It's not, so delete it. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:56, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Vagary" does have a particular meaning, and this ain't it. Delete. Edeans 21:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

penispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenispenis

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:31, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ben Delamont

Vanity. Cdc 03:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Khanartist 03:37, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Huzzah! Aussie spam and vanity. Then again, they are from Sydney... delete for nn, v. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:11, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... Vanity without notability. - Greaser 02:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --EnSamulili 12:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with hails of derisive laughter, Bruce. Edeans 21:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Joyous 21:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Terman Middle School

Doesn't appear notable, nor does it appear its creator was moving in that direction anyway. --InShaneee 03:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Yawn. Keep. School. —RaD Man (talk) 03:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's bad article, but the school is worthy of inclusion. Khanartist 04:02, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Another school to keep. --Centauri 06:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:15, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 07:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 14:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.--JuntungWu 17:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Palo Alto Unified School District deleted the school itself for twenty years, after the end of the baby boom. It has only recently returned to operation on its former premises, which has since become a Jewish Community Center. Not notable. --BM 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are worthy of inclusion in a truly great encyclopaedia. Dr Zen 05:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Lacrimosus 09:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Palo Alto, California and delete - Skysmith 11:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are inherently notable. --Andylkl 14:01, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable- Wikipedia still has no policy on whether schools per se are notable or not, and this fails to establish it's notability. --G Rutter 14:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article fails not to establish its notability. GRider\talk 17:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting info that's probably better served by merging into the Palo Alto article. This is a potential orphan as it stands. - Lucky 6.9 23:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yawn. Delete. School. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not inherently notable or encyclopedic. Article establishes neither. Gamaliel 16:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is in no way notable or encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Indrian 20:03, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. More schoolcruft. Edeans 21:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this please. Yuckfoo 21:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 21:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fantasywear

Another idiosyncratic dictionary definition from Supercool Dude. Uncle G 03:48, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

  • Keep. Plenty of people are into fetish/fantasy stuff. Might evolve into something useful. I'd say rename it to "Fantasy wear", though. Google gives about 5.000 hits for the former and 60.000 hits for the latter term. --Plek 17:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This seems like a reasonable stub and the author gives some very concrete examples. The nomination is factually inaccurate; just about anybody who uses fantasywear would recognise this as a reasonable definition. I agree with Plek about the move, but this can be done by the editors if and when they want to. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, in need of cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kevyn Wynn

A girl who was kidnapped. Pops coughed up $1.45M; since he's a Vegas plutocrat, that should have been chump change. Pops got her back before the fuzz even realized she was missing, and the article suggests that he got the dough, or much of it, back too. That was over a decade ago, and there's no hint that she's done anything notable since. Not notable, delete. -- Hoary 03:46, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

  • Presuming that it can be proven that the Ocean's Eleven situation DID resemble this situation (I've never seen the movie so I can't judge), then Merge, otherwise Delete. - Greaser 01:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ocean's Eleven gives as much information on this as it should, and the event is not notable on its own. JoaoRicardo 05:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:47, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Blake Jones

I can't find any evidence of notability. Happy to be proven wrong, though. Cdc 03:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Neither can I. Delete, reasonably obvious vanity. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:35, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • A check of Google didn't return any reasonable notability. It has to be delete I guess. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Edeans 21:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bloodstained Sky

A metal band, with no evidence of notability; no albums released, as far as I can tell. Cdc 03:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Browsing their webiste, they evidently have plans to release an album. Not enough. Khanartist 04:04, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Tuf-Kat 02:52, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article already deleted. Joyous 21:49, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Killerclaw

A high school kid who writes about computer games as well as playing them. Not notable. -- Hoary 04:06, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

  • Delete. Completely irrelevant is my dislike of the Baltimore Ravens. Yep, not a factor at all. Being non-notable is, though. Khanartist 04:16, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete I consider myself somewhat of a scholar of gaming history, and I've certainly never heard of this guy. Posting in some forums does not equal notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Killerclaw, the man, the Legend", that made me laugh... I say Delete all the same. I give the writer credit for writing that though, even more so if it was Killerclaw... hahaha. - Greaser 01:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Joyous 21:53, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

List of albums by the Beatles

I don't think this alphabetical list of Beatles albums is necessary. It's already covered by Category:The Beatles albums and Beatles discography, more thoroughly than this list, at that. I just can't see how the list is useful. - Vague | Rant 04:30, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Duplicates existing content. Khanartist 04:35, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete As Vague said, nothing mergeable here. --InShaneee 04:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with your reasoning completely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Beatles discography. Listing just the albums alone is to omit a huge part of the picture. And while there are reasons to have "List of ..." articles as well as Category:... categories, the existence of the discography eliminates the need for an additional such list here. Uncle G 06:56, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Uncle G. Samaritan 07:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect → Beatles discography. It's about as useful as List of animals that eat plants (and I hope that that particular article is a redirect to herbivore). Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the discography article - David Gerard 14:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, it would be a useful redirect but there's no need for it to be an autonomic article. - Greaser 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicates existing article, I'm not sure even a redirect here would be practical or worthwhile (who would type in something as long as that title?). Megan1967 02:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because we don't like to break links unnecessarily. Pcb21| Pete 00:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 07:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Tuf-Kat 02:54, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

ByLaws of Urban Greening Group

Seems like they're using this article to work on a document collaboratively. Not encyclopedic. Rhobite 05:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. WP is not a public server. Khanartist 05:53, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Encyclopedic and interesting to all. Ollieplatt 06:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Korath (Talk) 08:35, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to user namespace Thryduulf 22:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Not encyclopedic and not interesting to anybody. Olliplatt's trolling has become obvious. RickK 22:54, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a wiki hosting service. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment By-Laws, especially of non-profits, are kept in public library's. I would hope wikipedia and its members would allow the By-Laws to stay, but if not we understand and appreciate your open discussion. President Urban Greening Group, Michael Mosher
  • Delete. Try the Library of Congress (and good luck with that). Edeans 21:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 04:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1 vote to delete, 6 to keep.

KuzykGap, KuzykLimit

Original research, see Wikipedia:No original research. silsor 05:49, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Since there are links to the professor's web page and National Geographic articles mentioning his research, this doesn't seem to be original research. Rhobite 05:58, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. Ollieplatt 06:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A Google Search on "Kuzyk Quantum Gap" shows 95 hits. A citation search on Web of Science shows this work has appeared in multiple articles such as in the refereed and highly prestigious Physical Review Letters. In addition, there are many citations to this work in many other refereed journals.
  • Merge into something with a reasonable title. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not original research. Move KuzykGap to Kuzyk gap or Kuzyk quantum gap and probably merge KuzykLimit into that. Kappa 06:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move as per Kappa. This isn't original research. The original research is the article in Physical Review that is cited. Uncle G 07:03, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Not deletion material. Keep, move, rename, whatever - David Gerard 14:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Original sources are well referenced. Work is obviously not original.
  • Merge and redirect. Megan1967 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Emperor G

Vanity. Delete. Khanartist 06:47, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

  • Very few people are notable at the age of 15. This isn't one of them. Delete. No relation, by the way. Uncle G 07:11, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Somehow, I don't think that a 15 year old white rapper who is unknown outside of his own school (probably; couldn't confirm on Google) is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Looks like he knows how to use Paint, too. Delete. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:46, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. And it's their, not there. Arg. Inter 17:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Remember on Married With Children when Bud Bundy used to call himself GrandMaster B? Even that was more encyclopedic than this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • If photobucket is their only external link, the rapper's rhyme scheme consists of using the same word twice and the fact that the term 'street cred' is said instead of 'industry cred' or 'large scale underground cred' even... Delete - Greaser 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, completely nn, other than the scary resemblance to the royals in the Goya paintings. Edeans 21:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tom Barlament

Vanity, and strange vanity at that. Bantman 00:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • This user forgot to list the page on VfD after tagging it. I listed it a moment ago. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:18, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • The noted philospher and national celebrity Tom Barlament is actually a real person. Incredible! Are there more of these actually real people? I want to meet one! Delete. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I feel a sarcastic remark has already been delivered with great results. Thank you Alphax. Inter 15:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete while wooing women with my sensuous trombone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity . . ." Edeans 21:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Very F*cking Big List Of Sprite Comics

Ben thinks this is a vanity page, since User:Nestea is writing about hirself in the third person in the article. Ben thinks that if it was notable, its author wouldn't have to be the one making a Wikipedia article. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:28, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ливай agrees, and after reflecting upon the apparent non-notability of this website and the fact that Wikipedia is not a web guide, he votes to delete. — Ливай | ☺ 07:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Khanartist chose to vote on this matter mostly due to his wish to write about himself in the third person. More seriously, he votes for deletion based on the same reason he gave in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Screw These Comics. Khanartist 08:00, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Alphax believes that a "project" to rate webcomics could be placed on a userpage, but is definately not encyclopedic. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:31, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Alphax also forgot to vote. Delete. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat feels that this should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a web guide, and this list does not seem very notable to him. Tuf-Kat 08:46, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ambi also feels that this should be deleted, and that writing in the third person is fun. Ambi 08:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I chose to vote delete in the first person because I enjoy rampant subjectivity, and delete votes don't themselves have to satisfy NPOV - David Gerard 14:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Inter has spoken. Inter 15:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Your votes matter. --JuntungWu 17:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, ye, oh, ye! All rise! Plek enters the courtroom and he issues his verdict: "delete". Please be seated. --Plek 17:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The word is "oyez" and you say it three times. Just thought you should know. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • They bow to your infinite wisdom and depart merrily with their new-found knowledge. --Plek 14:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What the f*ck was I thinking? Nestea
    • We have decided that the first person plural is being grossly neglected in this section, so we would like to nominate User:Nestea for the "Best Cause Of Entertainment In An Original Vote For Deletion Nomination"-Award. --Plek 14:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Some person over there seconds that. (Fourth person? Hrm.) Alphax (t) (c) (e) 23:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • hfool/Roast me feels it's good to see authors own up to thier mistakes. And votes delete. 05:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You think that, just to confuse things, you'll talk in second person. And you'll vote Delete. Raven42 07:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oyez, oyez, oyez!. Delete, delete, delete! Edeans 22:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Foms

Dicdef neologism. A quick Google search doesn't turn up any usage of this acronym in this context. --Carnildo 07:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I googled "fear of missing something" foms and got less than 20 hits, mostly on message boards and blogs. Doesn't seem to be in wide use, and a dicdef in any case. Delete. Khanartist 08:05, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Shaun 'BRM' Goldstein

22 google hits for Shaun+BRM+Goldstein, none of which are relevant. WP seems to be under some kind of spam attack from people affiliated with the American Nihilist Underground Society; see the contributions of User:129.110.240.1, user:Derision, User:Adroyt, and who knows what else. -leigh (φθόγγος) 05:57, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC) Follow-up: It's not a question of notability, but of sheer accuracy: I don't think any of the statements in this article are true, and none of its ardent supporters have provided any proof to support them. -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:11, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Shaun Goldstein does not publish material under his real name, but under a pseudonym. {User:Iconoclast}
  • Keep The relationship between Goldstein and Halford has been well established and existent in the WP definition for some time. Goldstein's background needed to be elaborated on. {User:Adroyt}
    • Thank you for the input, gentlemen. Could you please provide a link to a source? As User:Adtroyt has so kindly pointed out, the Rob Halford article has contained for some time the sentence "It is not known if he has broken up with long-term boyfriend Shaun 'BRM' Goldstein" (with no punctuation). Previously, this sentence had also read "It is not known if he has had anal sex with shock rocker Shaun 'BRM' Goldstein," "It is not known if he has had anal sex with angst-ridden pollock Korey 'XThe UnknownX' Pollockski," and "It is not known if he has broken up with long-term boyfriend Shaun 'BRM' Goldstein who was said to be cheating on Halford with a one testicled pollack for some time." Can you persuade me that the current statement is any less nonsensical than the others? Oh, and thanks for the unsolicited AIM messages. Really. Now I'm much more likely to take ANUS seriously. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:42, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Like many pages, one sentence is often hijacked between two people for a laugh. Have you not heard of the time the host on screensavers defaced wikipedia to show how easy it is to spread false content? Defacement is nothing new, and the wiki crowd has taken it upon themselves to correct that defaced sentence. The proof of Shaun Goldstein is located at www.sodomy.org, as noted in Shaun's wikipage. Our savior Jesus Christ would have us forgive such people who deface pages, as he said to "forgive your enemy." User:Iconoclast
  • Delete. After further investigation into the group Leigh described, vote has been changed. It appears the rob Haldford article is in need of vandalism watch. Khanartist 08:38, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, could probably be speedied as a hoax, but I'll let someone else do it. Tuf-Kat 08:50, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm sorry, but how does this have anything to do with some group? If it is fact, it should stay. 194.143.75.179 18:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is connected to a group which has been incredibly disruptive in the last day or so (see here), which throws its veracity into serious question. Furthermore, it doesn't help the process of trying to find out whether it is fact when you delete my comments above asking for sources. Please don't do that again. -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Korath (Talk) 19:42, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if all of the information in the article is true, there is nothing to establish notability. Delete. RickK 23:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems to be a bad joke. Jonathunder 04:04, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • Delete --EnSamulili 12:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete very likely hoax and/or libel, and even on the odd chance that it's 100% true, that still does not make this individual noteworthy enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Very likely a hoax and/or libel, and not a clever one, either. Edeans 22:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:23, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Greg Dean

Page about a normal person who writes a webcomic. The webcomic may be notable but the person isn't. silsor 09:50, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, agreed. dbenbenn | talk 09:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Looks like vanity to me. Could be merged with the comic if the article exists. Inter 14:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable, likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • The man deserves an article as much as, say, Fred Gallagher, but this ain't it. Delete. Writes a good comic, though. hfool/Roast me 05:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Article created by a known vandal. RickK 07:18, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent vanity. Edeans 22:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

However, I recognize what is being described in this article: the rules for High School prose/poetry interpretation events. Therefore, I've been bold and redirected it to National Forensic League. Joyous 22:33, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Prose_&_Poetry

This entry appears unencyclopedic. Where is it going? Why keep it? Peter Hitchmough

Forgot to add Delete. Inter 16:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Poetry is different in "the Cleveland district"? What the hell? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "What links here" sometimes clears up mysteries. Merge for the time being into Ohio High School Speech League, where the data presented makes a bit of sense in context. Whether the Ohio High School Speech League, apparently about high school speech competitions in Ohio, is notable enough to deserve an article is a question for another day. Trust me, Cleveland is wholly devoid of poetry. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, incoherent. I could see a possibility of redemption if it were completely rewritten and expanded.--Enigma 04:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --EnSamulili 12:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Aron Boström

Not notable or encyclopedic. Apparently autobiographical article (the IP seems to give it away) by a 20-year old Wikipedia user and engineering student at Lund University who is also the leader of a very minor regional political party, Skånefederalisterna. The goals of the 2-year old party, which claims to have 50 members, is to give Scania more independence within a federation with the rest of Sweden, and to change the official spelling of the name of the city of Kristianstad to Christianstad. (Party website.) No seats won in any elections, as far as I can see. I searched Swedish media, and found only two brief mentionings in the regional evening paper Kvällsposten, and some letters to the editor. Even if the party would deserve an article, which I doubt, it is so minor that individual representatives certainly do not. / up+land 10:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfy and Delete, Inter 13:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Unverifiable. Delete - David Gerard 14:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete! (Huh?! Have I been severly drunk, or has someone borrowed my computer/IP?) Certainly neither notable nor encyclopedic. (Though the party is not as minor as Uppland seem to think; 1 TV news broadcast, 5-6 radio broadcasts, 4-5 articles yet alone in Kb newspaper and dozens of mentionings in other papers, including the three major papers SDS, SkD and HD) I'm not entirely certain 194...206 was my IP adress as of 15:38, 13 Apr 2004, but it propably was. --Aron Boström 14:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • As the subject you don't get a vote ;-) And from the evidence you list, this is in fact verifiable and encyclopaedic. So I'm afraid I have to vote keep! - David Gerard 22:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as even the creator (above) seems to want it deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • An article on Skånefederalisterna would be notable, but delete Aron Boström (at this time)... Samaritan 21:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Move this article there, leaving this as a redirect - David Gerard 22:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • ...what he said. Samaritan 10:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed. I get the feeling that the article was created by someone other than the subject - possibly a close friend or family member. When he becomes notable in his own right (apart from the party), re-create article and add to category "Wikipedians with their own article" (or whatever it is). Alphax (t) (c) (e) 12:41, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • The IP is in this case traceable to a particular dormitory room in Lund, but I can easily imagine a friend borrowing his computer and writing this as a practical joke. / up+land 00:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If the Skånefederalisterna have been mentioned more often in the press than I could find with my newspaper text database search, I think we would need some more references. At present, once the specific biographical details are removed at the move to a new title, there isn't much left of the article. / up+land 00:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Does one TV news broadcast and a few press clippings make you notable? No. Delete. Can't agree with the proposition that an article about a newly formed organisation with 50 members would be relevant either. Articles about campus societies that have been around longer and have more members have been deleted as non-notable. Possibly a brief mention in Scanian nationalism - but that would be stretching it. Alarm 22:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There should probably be an article on Scanian nationalism (or regionalism or separatism or whatever). Personally I don't know enough about it to write one. / up+land 00:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I've been on TV several times as well as on radio and in the newspapers tens of times and received more votes in parliamentary elections than this person ever will. And I don't consider myself notable. --EnSamulili 12:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 22:44, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

C syntax

With humble apology to the many excellent contributors to this article, I would like to strongly suggest that the content all be moved to the Wikibook on C. This request may generate some controversy, and I can't seem to find a suitable clause in the deletion policy, but I think it's the only suitable solution for both projects.

What makes this article more appropriate for Wikibooks?

  1. It's extremely detailed — well beyond the level someone interested in "general knowledge" might expect or desire.
  2. It doesn't stand on its own. It has the feel of a section in a much larger work describing libraries, semantics, common practices, history, and other details. If we embedded all this into the encyclopedia, we would have a book.
  3. The C Wikibook needs a good section on syntax like this one (compare the minimal syntax chapter), and forking is undesirable.

One objection I expect is: why not copy the content, but leave this article in place, cutting it down to more of a summary? I think this is fine, but I think such a summary would become so short that it might as well be merged back into the section in C programming language whence this article originally emerged. Deco 10:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. A discussion about this was started on the article's talk page, some time ago. That's where this should be discussed. When a conclusion is reached, then think about VfD if still appropriate. Andrewa 12:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry if I did this too quickly. I really should've brought it up on the talk page first. Deco 22:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because something plausibly could be transwikid doesn't mean it should be - David Gerard 14:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks like a well written and useful article. Feel free to plunder it for Wikibooks, that's what the GFDL is for. --14:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I understand where you're coming from, and if the article was 20KB larger, I'd agree with you. As it is it's not unreasonably long, and it's very informative. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not unreasonably long, informative. Add content to Wikibooks as well. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:10, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep - keep and transwiki. Samaritan 21:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs cleanup. Megan1967 02:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 05:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I for one search Wikipedia long before I think to check Wikibooks.
  • Keep. I feel silly voting keep on something I submitted, but at the very least this was premature of me. Apologies again. Deco 02:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lihamuki

Non notable article. It concerns a certain kebab only made in a few grills in Lahti, Finland. Inter 13:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Not verifiable - delete - David Gerard 14:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not sure about this one. Some regional cuisine does become widely known. I'd say transwiki if verifiable as a regional dish, delete if its only served at one restraunt or one chain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Local kebab food not known outside Lahti and probably not well known by majority of city inhabitants, that is, those folks who don't frequently line up for overprized junkfood at 4 AM in the morning. jni 16:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 23:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --EnSamulili 12:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

MUHAMMAD HAQUE POETRY

This doesn't seem to be notable. A Google search produces only 6 hits, of which no more than 3 could be this person. Varying the spelling of Muhammad does not make a difference. Searching for Aadhikar produces 29 hits but no newspaper - but this may be a mis-spelling of Adhikar. Can't find any reference to the documentary though. Dbiv 14:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Inter 14:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, possible promo. Also has copyright notice, incompatible with Wikipedia. Almost a speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyrighted, perhaps plagerism? - Greaser 02:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 02:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I imagine the author is the poster; the copyright notice makes it signed. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Benth Bulletin for the same editor's work. Samaritan 08:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Cantu Lopez

Article does not establish notability and no Google hits: apparently vanity. Sietse 13:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Vanity. Inter 14:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Enough vanity to drive a manatee to insanity. — Ливай | ☺ 22:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, patent vanity. Edeans 23:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Technowax

Advert for non-notable website. Dbiv 14:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Advert. Inter 16:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete even if it IS "full of spinkey goodness". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article which has a certain "empisis" on deletability. Edeans 23:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Isidro Savillo

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Jamesday has deleted the sections that can only be handled by developers, and I've left a message for User:Dbach to find out if he has any others that need deletion. Joyous 23:05, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:Dbach

I need all older versions of my user page removed, since my full name appears on them. I - and other users as well - have been receiving molesting/threatening letters from a German anti-psychiatry organisation, an article on which I edited recently in the German Wikipedia. Dbach 14:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, of course, though I'm confused as to why it needs to be here. —Korath (Talk) 18:17, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletion of user pages are allowed under speedy delete rules. Consider it fixed. Bah, when I try to delete it, it says
Can't delete this article because it contains block-compressed revisions. This is a temporary situation which the developers are well aware of, and should be fixed within a month or two. Please mark the article for deletion and wait for a developer to fix our buggy software.
To get it deleted right away you will need to talk to a developer like User:Jamesday. Thue | talk 19:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm deleting all compressed revisions of this as a developer, assuming that there is actual harassment happening. The reason for inability to delete some articles is not buggy software: it's a mixture of two new features, selective undeletion and multiple revision compression for article history. The selective undeletion wasn't written to work with the new compression of article history, so to be safe deletion (and hence undeletion) was turned off until the necessary work to make it compatible had been done. We needed the compression without waiting for that work, as part of the continual race with growth. Jamesday 03:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's "deletion of things using the compression is turned off". Deletion of things that aren't still works. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
All of the compressed revisions (and all containing the full name) have been completely removed from the database. The most recent few revisions remain. If User:Dbach wants those gone any admin can take care of it (unless one happens to become more than a month old and be caught in a compression run, in which case I'll remove it on request). Jamesday 04:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article already deleted. Joyous 23:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Smith N. Jones High School

Looks like a prank; I can't find any evidence that a school by this name exists in Midway, Wyoming (or any other locale), and none is offered by the article. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as likely prank/hoax of some sort. Any real school would have at least 1 Google hit, somewhere, somehow. This doesn't. Bye. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. —Korath (Talk) 22:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Who's Smith N. Jones anyway?
  • Delete, If this is a prank, I must ask why the author put in so much effort. However, this doesn't appear to be notable. Inter 23:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The name is probably an attempt to not be blatant by using "Smith 'n' Jones". Alias Smith and Jones is a possible origin. Also notice the claim that staff at the school have won the Nobel Prize. Uncle G 05:29, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • Comment:An anon has deleted the vfd header from the article and deleted this entry from the vfd page. I have blocked them for 24 hours. RickK 01:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Hoary 10:07, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • Abstain
  • Delete, hoax. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Confession It was I who created Smith N. Jones High School in Midway, Wyoming. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Their staff never won any Nobel Prizes. Neither did their alumni. The school didn't get any recognition, so they didn't get the Blue Ribbon Award of Excellence in Education either. I created the "school". It doesn't exist! Ha ha...! 68.23.44.205 00:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • For your next act:
      • Go to a newspaper vending machine, pay for one paper, and take two! Ha ha ha ha ha!
      • Accumulate lots of pennies by always taking a few pennies from "leave-a-penny-take-a-penny" trays —and never leaving any! Hee hee hee hee hee!
      • Every time you see a car with one of those magnetic "Support Our Troops" ribbons on it, just peel it off and keep it! Ho ho ho ho ho!
  • Speed deleted as admitted fabrication. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article already deleted. Joyous 23:07, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

American Nihilist Underground Society

  • Interesting and telling that all of my comments have been deleted, including links that correct your incorrect Google information. What are you afraid of? Come on, grow up. 67.10.73.69 03:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is presumeably Prozak, whose comments were moved below to be in chronological order, just like everyone else's. —Korath (Talk) 04:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable website, apparently vanity. Alexa doesn't like my browser, but Google shows only 151 incoming links, and the 83 that are from outside the anus.com domain are mostly blogs. —Korath (Talk) 18:03, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Previous VFD; result was delete. —Korath (Talk) 21:14, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to fix your incorrect Google information? --Prozak 01:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Josh Cherry 18:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notable, A.N.U.S is ten years old and very influential. Incognito 19:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Society with important implications on Nihilist community. See [www.nihil.org center for nihilist studies]
    • The above by anon 194.143.75.179, whose only four contributions have been to remove the vfd tag from the page, add one here (screwing it up once), and the above vote. —Korath (Talk) 18:29, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Society has existed for over ten years, plus has been a leading reviewer of metal and the Nihilistic Philosphy.{User:Iconoclast}
    • This user has been accused of being a troll or sockpuppet; see here for more.. -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • This has no bearing on whether or not this article is encyclopedic or not. Please stay on topic. Dmdx86 20:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Iconoclast's has 38 edits; his first was today. —Korath (Talk) 19:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Noteworthy, highly influential. Perhaps article should describe its philosophy more in-depth to distance itself further from any possible "vanity" criticism. {User:Sidhe}
  • Keep. Those of you moving toward Delete, have you actually looked at the site? There's a wealth of content, much of which is not exactaly subjective - notably such elements as an extensive library of music information and review. My suspicion is that this VfD is motivated more by certian associations the society might have rather than any legitimate concerns about its content. Mabye if it had a linux section influential wiki-walkers might be more apt to accept it? {this comment by 69.151.255.185; this is that IP's first edit}
  • Delete. Society is well established in the metal underground, and has been EXTREMELY influential in their overall ideology. But still, this site is shit. Adroyt 18:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This user is also a troll. -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Being a troll has no bearing on whether someone's opinion is valid or not here. Should we discount your opinion because you have different view on society than someone else? Dmdx86 20:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Trolls by definition are malicious users who do not have the community's best interests at heart. -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:27, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • I have done nothing malicious. Now you are just blatantly slandering me. Just who is the troll here?Dmdx86 01:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't think you are a troll, and I've never called you one. Notice that my comment was directed toward Adroyt. You alleged that trollness should be irrelevant, and I responded in disagreement. At no point were you called a troll. Actually, I would also like to apologize to Adroyt and withdraw that accusation for lack of evidence. Perhaps I confused him/her with another user; God knows there's been plenty of ANUS fans running around. -leigh (φθόγγος) 02:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Adroyt's first edit was today. —Korath (Talk) 19:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, how am I a troll? I saw no need to create an account until I wanted to work on something important, my past contributions have been minor edits to various pages under IP only. Don't you get banned for slandering people?
  • Keep. Not sure if I have enough contributions to vote but nonetheless I will add my opinion. ANUS has been around since 1987 and publishes all sorts of written literary and philosophical work. I don't think its fair that Gay Nigger Association of America gets put up for VfD 5 times and wins each time and then someone comes here and complains about something of a similar (but obviously different) vein. I think the attention that ANUS members have received on the Internet through its websites (more than one), contributions to Metal, and insights into the philosophy of nihilism make it noteworthy. Also, the article is hardly vanity any more than the entry about Slashdot is vanity. It also smacks of ignorance to say that ANUS is just a website when it is far more that, ANUS exists outside of its web presence and the website exists only as an extention of what they do. Just becuase it has a funny name doesn't mean it deserves to be deleted. Also, I would like to note that on many VfDs of past, I have seen votes for keep removed because they were "sockpuppets" or people who haven't contributed enough or whatever but votes for delete never received such scruitiny. Just something to keep in mind if you really are interested in being objective. -[[User::Dmdx86|dmdx86]] 19:05, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yet another user whose only contributes have been to ANUS, aside from voting in the GNAA VFD months ago. A sockpuppet complaining about accusations of sockpuppeteering; how droll. -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Dmdx86 has 18 edits. —Korath (Talk) 19:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • So just becuase I have voted for something unpopular to some and helped edit the page for this entry it makes my opinion invalid? I am not a sockpuppet as I did not create this account for the purpose of stuffing the votes here. Interesting how you don't have anything else to say to counter my arguments but wish to block people merely becuase they agree with unpopular groups/entries. Dmdx86 20:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • If you'll notice, I voted to keep this article, because I agree with your argument. What I am protesting (vehemently) are the tactics used by you and your cohorts, outlined here. -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. --Lysol 19:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain and comment (Changed to Delete based on further information and evidence regarding trolling and sockpuppet activity.) I don't know enough about this org to vote at this time, but I will verify that an org of this name has at least been around awhile: I can specifically remember it going back at least to 1997, which alone puts it ahead of the vast majority of VfD canditates. I do think that if kept, it should be cleaned up: philosophical and musical interests should be retained, but trolling and IRC activities should be removed as unworthy of encyclopedic mention. Leaning towards keep and cleanup at this time, but will reconsider deletion if more information should arise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am roughly in agreement about IRC; to me, it's a means to an end. Trolling will be explained in a future article about what happens when discourse dies (rest assured it will cite the use of the term "sock puppet" by paranoid Wikipedians); as a nihilist, I don't believe in "good" and "evil" or other philosophical Absolutes (non-philosophical absolute: I enjoy candycanes), thus I can't say I'm against trolling as a means, especially when the audience is as ill-informed as most are in the current time. Because of that, however, it's important that we as nihilists uphold the value of trolling, since discourse is dead. Prozak 03:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • This may be a misunderstanding. I'm not saying anything about trolling or IRC on any moral grounds. It's the non-encyclopedic quality of it that concerns me. As I said below, Wikipedia is essentially a huge online reference book. In 20 or 30 years' time, people will still be looking up Martin Luther King, Jr. and Stephen Hawking and possibly even Tom Green, but is anybody going to need to know what so-and-so said in IRC last Tuesday or how many times they posted on 4chan? Hell, no. Just because something is true or accurate doesn't mean it should necessarily be put in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:20, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, and there's also a middle ground between IRC and Tom Green; I'm not really sure anyone will care about those two even in fifty years, seeing how Martin Luther King plagiarized everything he ever "wrote" and Tom Green is, well, mediocre as well. ANUS has, as you said, been around for a long time and raising more hell than not. If WikiPedia cannot recognize that, I suggest it is the vanity of WikiPedians speaking. Prozak 04:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Trolling is talked about in Slashdot's entry as well as the Gay Nigger Association of America's entry. GNAA has survived VfD 5 times, so I think it was been pretty well established that talking about trolling is acceptable. Also, it is totally unfair that a newish article in progress gets put up for VfD before it has a chance to be improved. --dmdx86 Dmdx86 19:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • And that is precisely the problem. If trolling is a major part of this org's activities, then the org itself likely isn't important enough to be on WP. Both of the above are bad examples: Slashdot is obviously notable for much more than anything related to trolling, and the fact that GNAA has been up for VfD 5 times should clue you in that many of us here at WP don't consider trolling groups encyclopedic (and besides, GNAA would seem to be more famous than ANUS anyway). Think of it this way: this is an encyclopedia, a research tool for the ages. When somebody accesses WP twenty or thirty years from now, do you really think they'll give a crap what someone said on some forum or IRC channel? Of course not. Now, if ANUS really supports musical and philosophical interests, and has made contributions to those fields, tell us more about them in the article, and the less (if anything) said about trolling, the better, so as to keep it encyclopedic. As it stands my vote is leaning toward deletion unless additional evidence is provided as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • You don't seem to remember that GNAA won each and every one of its VfDs. Just because a vocal hypocritical minority doesnt like something does not indicate lack of encyclopedic value. May I note that what Wikipedia considers "encyclopedic" differs quite alot from what a printed encyclopedia would consider to fit that definition and not print even half of the stuff Wikipedia lists. I see all sorts of obscure social and cultural things on Wikipedia but when someone posts something that totally contradicts what most of you accept as the norm in society, you all go nuts. How can ANUS describe its philosophical and metal contributions (which are on the webiste which you obviously did NOT visit) if the page is going to get delted anyway? Dmdx86 01:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Most of the above commentators are trolls or sockpuppets. We should keep a very short article under this name, but most of these trolls need to be blocked. -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • You should be more specific. Who here specifically are trolls? What makes a troll? Otherwise, it smacks of blatant alarmism. ANUS has quite a few articles that I've come into contact with several times over the last decade. --199.174.252.101 00:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's been around for at least a decade, and is definitely notable within the nihilism community, even if the average person hasn't heard of it. --Rolloffle 19:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The article undoubtedly needs heavy cleanup (like what happened last month to the GNAA article), but should be kept. Sam Hocevar 21:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a non-notable vanity. Khanartist 21:12, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shouldn't this be a speedy candidate? Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, kill the sockpuppets. Dunc|☺ 21:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Give up, deletionists. There is no reason to remove or even truncate this article. GNAA Popeye 22:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. --fvw* 22:28, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete - sockpuppet heaven - David Gerard 23:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a wealth of information about metal that is unrivaled.Baxter0 23:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yet another account created solely to comment on this VFD. -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:27, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Prove it. Put up or shut up.
        • Just so as you know, we can check the list of your contributions, which indicates that User:Baxter0 has only ever edited this page. You might find a different argument more effective. It is typical of VfD to view the votes of anonymous or just-registered users with some skepticism, regardless of how they vote. You might serve your cause better by allowing more established users to vote. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • The arguments should be judged by themselves, not by looking at the editor.Baxter0 01:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Prozak) The site has been around since early 1995; before that, it was a directory on the old paranoia.com (you DO remember that, don't you? if not, I suspect a newbie, no offense). Previous to that, it was represented by an FTP space for the undiscovered country ezine, one of the first ezines and arguably the first in literature. Previous to that, it was represented well on a series of bulletin boards, most notably the Apocalyptic Funhouse, which if you called Houston in the 1980s you will remember. Here's our old text file archive on textfiles.com, a site you also hopefully mention: http://www.textfiles.com/magazines/ANUS/ And regarding incoming links, your Google syntax is broken; try this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=link%3A*anus.com&btnG=Search which will yield you "about 2,240 English pages" linking to anus.com or subdivisions thereof. Finally, I find this voting process to be the kind of pathetic clique orientation/in-group psychology that makes the Internet post-1996 quite pathetic. WikiPedia deserves better, at least if it wishes to be accepted by mature people. Prozak 01:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Astoundingly enough, your search for *anus.com finds more hits than plain anus.com. Even so, there's only 410 unique ones listed. —Korath (Talk) 01:57, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Seems you're trying to cover up your error? The underground metal community, and definitely the philosophical one, is a small one, and anus.com is blocked via all current web filters (most of whom assume we're a porn site). I think WikiPedia is, through the users here, failing to recognize reality past the end of its nose. Prozak 02:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Another sockpuppet, this vote is the user's first edit. --fvw* 01:05, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
      • No, fool, I'm one of the site's admins and I'm defending it. Notice that I also fixed some items on the ANUS entry and now am going through your death metal links :) --Prozak 01:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Note that fvw* is now threatening to delete my account for calling him a fool after he made a personal attack on me, calling me names (sockpuppet) without taking the time to realize I was indeed contributing to the article in question - see here. This is not very professional of you, nor very mature, and I find the entire situation to reek of bad psychology. Fess up to hypocrisy, fvw ;) Prozak 02:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Or, perhaps, he's had better things to do than sit editing WP pages. Derision 01:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, significant, at least because it was the first website or zine to recognize metal as anything other than "beer and bullet belts" music and create the idea of "ambient metal". Also, very well known and influential within the metal scene. Derision 01:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Painfully obvious sockpuppet, user page was created by User:Adroyt. --fvw* 01:09, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
    • You are taking this sockpuppet business too far. Just because it is the user's first edit does not diminish the argument for the usefulness of the website. - Baxter0 01:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Check the IP addys- obviously not a sockpuppet. Derision 01:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You say that like the gnaa isn't training you to use anonymous proxies. Good dogs! ruff 66.144.4.52 01:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Come on, I'm sure you know that WP blocks anonymous proxies. Derision 02:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Regardless, Derision's edit history (including vandalizing my user page) is hardly encouraging. -leigh (φθόγγος) 02:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nice ad hominem that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As for my edit history, I created the Immolation (band) page, and added links to the official sites for several bands, so you can't say that I've not contributed anything. Derision 02:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sock-puppets and trolls are out in force: never a reassuring sign. The www.anus.com Web site has an Alexa rank of around 80,000. Conclusion: not a notable web-site. --BM 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • A method of determining value that does not require even viewing the site material seems questionable.Baxter0 01:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • User:BM never said that he did not view the site, only that Alexa demonstrates that it is not popular. That's compelling evidence for non-notability. And I did check the website, before I cast my ballot. No change of vote. Khanartist 01:41, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
        • Has there been any in-depth analysis as to the objectivity or accuracy of Alexa's rankings? Again, far less notable gets put into Wikipedia every day and none of you complain. Dmdx86 01:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • So-called alleged sockpuppets are not a justifucation for deletion. Far less notable groups get a pass on Wikipedia, yet when there are groups that defies social norms or social order, you all go nuts and demand deletion. How is this for hypocrisy? Dmdx86 01:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Sockpuppets are not grounds for deletion. They are grounds for blocks, and ignoring their votes on VfDs, as explained here. If it is suspected that users are using sockpuppets to evade WP policy, the admins will take action. Khanartist 01:52, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
        • There are no sockpuppets being used here, AFAIK. I should disclaim that there is another user who might be posting here from the same IP address becuase we both go to the same University which has us all behind the same IP. Although I have not contributed much to Wikipedia, my username has been active for far longer than this article which sould be sufficent proof that I am not a sockpuppet, despite blatantly false claims. Dmdx86 01:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This site is well known in philosophical circles and in the metal community beyond the internet. Despite vociferous detractors, it has a long history, extensive content, and authors several definitive FAQ contributions to USENET and the net community.Sodomizer 02:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, sock puppets only add weight to the delete vote. Megan1967 02:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Putting personal feelings and accusations of trolling aside, can any evidence be given to discredit the merit of the philosophy of the ANUS, or the value of the information concerning heavy metal music? And is there any evidence that the information is redundant thus making the site unnotable?Baxter0 02:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, not encyclopedic - wikipedia is not a web guide. --Spangineer ∞ 02:17, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • User is flaming Christian, and ANUS.com says very little of positive note about that kooky religion. Thus, I say he's a "sock puppet." Hey, did I do it right? LOL Prozak 02:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I find it entertaining that you call me a sock puppet when I have 1300 edits, and you have 25, practically all related to this VfD. But, by all means, continue destroying your credibility if you like. --Spangineer ∞ 03:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is where I draw the line. I realize we set a precedent with the GNAA, but Wikipedia is not consistent. The article as it stands gives no independent sources, it lists only activities established by the ANUS itself, and there is a strong reason to suspect that all of the factual content has been supplied by ANUS members. This makes the article unverifiable. As an inclusionist, I'm careful about judging notability, but I don't compromise on verifiability. The article waxes prolific on activities that have not been established to have been noticed by anyone outside of ANUS, other than those they have brought to attention themselves by self-admitted trolling. The GNAA was borderline. This, IMO, is on the wrong side of the border. The threshold for verifiability is far too low. Multiple independent references are needed, and they must be reasonably accessible. Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor is it an index for any association of individuals who think they are notable (regardless of whether that association is formed to play chess or to promote nihilism). On those grounds, delete.
    Also, I'd like the supporters to take into consideration that Keep votes by new accounts are not helping your cause. We've seen this before, and it only convinces people that you're acting in bad faith, and that your articles should preferrably be deleted just to make sure you don't bother us. Don't do it. You're free to argue the article's merits for inclusion, but don't try to pretend your votes are accurate representations of members of the Wikipedia community (and we do rather want that, to make sure that you understand what we're trying to do here in the first place). We won't buy one-shot votes anyway, and it's just going to tempt people into voting on the authors and "what would happen" if we had such an article. Keep in mind that this vote will be tallied by a human being, who will take legitimacy of votes into account. Getting the most Keep votes in does not mean automatic victory. This is one discussion you cannot win by just opening a can of members and supporters, and pointing out how unfair they are being treated by us. You need facts, you need to exhibit an understanding of our policies, and you need to make a coherent argument. I have seen none of this. I wish you the best of luck with your organization, but I don't believe Wikipedia can have an article on it without compromising its integrity. JRM 02:52, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
    • I dunno; how would go about "proving" this when most of the sources have moved on and are now part of history? It's linked from most major metal sites, but without an exhaustive list of those there's no way to "prove" that. Prozak 03:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    A few useful links:
  • Speedy deleted as recreation of a deleted article. Neutralitytalk 03:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
    Can you confirm the recreated article had the same content as the deleted one? (Not just "there was something there about the same subject"?) Mind you, I'm not questioning your authority in doing so, just want to make sure. JRM 03:24, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
    Update. Predictably, the article has been recreated, warranting its replacement by one of those nifty protected templates that pretend there's no article there. This is not a good day. JRM 03:37, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, the new article is (was) not identical to the previously deleted one. (However, the subject matter is the same, whether it is claiming to be about the website or the society.) I don't think they're really different enough to merit a new discussion, but I (or another administrator) can post the text if you want to compare. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Not necessary, though it's bordering on just SDing because you can somewhat make the argument and because it's the right thing to do for Wikipedia (which I will be the last to dispute). I think letting the VfD discussion run to its completion would have been more productive, if only to allow us to thoroughly refute the supporting arguments (or what little there were), as the previous VfD discussion had none to speak of. I am not so far gone that I'm going to waste admin time to make a fuss about it, though. I'll consider this a premature VfD, and to my opinion consensus among independent observers was sufficiently reached. JRM 03:55, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • I, too, wish to register my discomfort with the SD of this article. The content seemed different enough from the anus.com article deleted previously, and the notability question wasn't fully resolved to my satisfaction. However, this really isn't all that important to me, and I'll certainly be glad to be done with this mess. -leigh (φθόγγος) 04:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Discomfort with speedy for me too. A Google usenet search seems to establish notability. --SPUI 04:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the speedy If it failed VfD once, it surely would have again. And it would have been a rough week indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:24, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and add anus.com to spam blacklist - even less relevant to anything than the GNAA. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Any article which has to have the creation of tons of sock puppets like this fails on its own merit -- inability to establish its own notability. RickK 05:35, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE++ Anus.com is full of uncouth people so I am changing me e-vote (did I do this right?) we can't allow sockpuppets like these the right to vote -- they're undermining the wikipedia democratic process.--Iconoclast 06:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete barring evidence of actual notability. -Sean Curtin 07:49, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • deleteGeni 11:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 13:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp 19:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike GNAA, I can't imagine anyone looking this one up. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • ANUS cited in press release. The End Records quoted us regarding Darkthrone, one of the founding black metal bands. See press release here. Also, did I mention we're in Mecklermedia's "On Internet" going back to 1994? That's a print publication of Internet sites. Oh, and of course the home of the Heavy Metal FAQ and the Death FAQ! These links are in the now-deleted ANUS entry on WikiPedia. Prozak 20:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • My balls hurt It was already deleted a while ago, there's noway all you geniuses posting "delete" after the "speedy delete" mention could have ever seen it.
  • You make a valid point: there are a lot of people voting for deletion that haven't even seen the page!!!!! I believe that the Deletion crowd has been gathering up unqualified people just to vote for delete. This is obviously scandalous and I believe that there is a concentrated effort to undermine this organization --Iconoclast 03:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that administrators can see deleted articles. —Korath (Talk) 08:06, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, regardless, it seems amateurish to delete an article before it has a chance to even be written well. --Iconoclast 02:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trollvertisement. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CryptoDerk 15:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nunh-huh 07:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have not been roped into voting on this; I simply wish to comment that ATM the article is deleted, and I hope it stays that way. Objections can be raised at VfU. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 23:28, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
    I also wish to comment that since the article was deleted, there is no way for voters to see what it looks like or -- as I suggested -- to improve it and try to make it more encyclopedic and more NPOV. Sam Hocevar 23:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Period 23:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cantu

In Spanish. Babelfish translates it as

Jesus Cantu Lopez is born in Monterrey, the New Leon, Mexico the 11 of December of 1956, first studies in Mexican Frank School and Mexican Frank University Center in Monterrey, the New Leon. Graduated with honorifica mention like Engineer Quimico de Proceso in the ITESM

He doesn't seem to be notable. Thue | talk 19:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Infrogmation 22:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A better translation doesn't do much better - just sounds like a smart graduate of a top notch Latin American university. Not notable. Delete. --Spangineer ∞ 02:12, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is Wikipedia English and this is no-one notable.

See Jesus Cantu Lopez, above. RickK 06:54, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Clan sSs

A gaming clan, founded in 2004. Doesn't seem be be encyclopedia-class notable. Thue | talk 19:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Not notable. Inter 23:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cdc 01:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, gamingcruft (likely too charitable). Edeans 23:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 23:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dave's Gourmet

Advertisement/Spam.

  • Keep very well known among spicy food fans. I also don't think this is an ad or spam, as the article claims Daves is notable "only" for its hot sauces. If someone from Dave's wrote it, they would have mentioned Daves' other products, like the popcorn and drink mixes. In fact, I think I know more about Dave's Gourmet than whoever wrote this article, so I doubt it's anyone from the company. To summarise: evidence suggest this is NOT an ad or spam, and it's definitely notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article needs, uh, spicing. Samaritan 21:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup, And all is well. Inter 23:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Dave's Insanity Sauce is reasonably notable, although we had an article about it which was a copyvio, and was deleted and replaced by a redirect to Habanero chile. I could have sworn it went through VfD but can't find the discussion. If this article is kept, Dave's Insanity Sauce should redirect here. If memory serves, Dave's Insanity Sauce was one of the very first sauces to be made directly from capsaicin extract. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) The contents of the deleted article was:
Dave’s Gourmet hot sauces are the result of Dave owning and managing a small restaurant called Burrito Madness near the University of Maryland. Late at night a number of Dave’s patrons were usually drunk and troublesome. Quickly Dave discovered that if some of these drunks ate super hot hot sauce, then they either left or became extremely quiet. Since it worked out that the hotter the sauce, the faster drunk patrons left; Dave went on a mission to create the hottest sauce in the Universe. The end result of this mission was Insanity Sauce which Dave took to the National Fiery Foods Show in New Mexico. At the show the sauce made quite an impression and not just because of the straight jacket that Dave wore. In fact, Daves Insanity Sauce became the only product ever banned for being too hot. Since that day over 8 years ago: Burrito Madness was sold, Dave set up Dave’s Gourmet, Inc., and seventy other products have been added to Dave’s Gourmet’s offerings.
  • Delete, borderline notability. Looks like advertising and probably is. Megan1967 02:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although it needs help - I'm not a fan of crazy-hot hot sauces, and even I've heard of their product. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. -- ckape (talk) 03:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 05:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jesse Opakas

Not notable. Thue | talk 19:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Whatever this is, it doesnt belong here. Inter 23:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cdc 01:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete probably vanity, certainly does not prove notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:07, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dogabatic

No evidence is presented in the article to indicate why this "politically and economically motivated novel" is notable. A Google search gets 45 hits: two come from "The Official Homepage of 'The Dogabatic'"; all the rest come from a website with "ratjed" in the URL, always as part of the sentence "The Dogabatic: This new novel by Ralph Gillies may offer solutions for some of the worlds most important problems." Note that the article was created by User:RatJed.

Originally, the {{cleanup-importance}} tag was put on the article to raise the question of notability. However, despite this being a tag listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup, it was removed as a "tag for bogus unconfirmed policy", so now the question of notability is being raised here on VfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; probable vanity. —Korath (Talk) 21:31, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as promo and lack of notability. Good reasearch on your part, by the way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not independently verifiable - David Gerard 23:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Amazon doesn't list it. Article provides no ISBN number. Author's web provides no ISBN number. It has not been "published" in any usual sense of the word. Available as a PDF download with honor-system shareware-like "pay $23 if it is worth it" request. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The upshot of this novel seems to be that its writer wanted to win the U.S. presidential election, 2004. "Everyone who votes red and black is voting to elect me to become President, is voting for Michael Jordan as my Principle of the Vice Presidency – if he accepts – is voting for the other members of the Mox Atom Presidential Administration – if they accept - and is voting to build a heterosexual male world... But we will also need me, Mox, who knows more about what is going on than anyone else... If John Kerry is setting up these international koban voting programs to build our arms and our legs, then, in one quantized reality, that is kind of like building our bones. Heh heh." (Insert joke about merging with United States Natural Law Party or Lyndon LaRouche here...) Samaritan 09:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_16&oldid=9416119"