Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KaisaL (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 29 July 2005 (add one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

July 29

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Schleimer

Stub on a notable entertainment lawyer.♥purplefeltangel 00:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline, but leaning delete at present: "Attendant fame" is one of the things we don't measure (being the kid or ex-lover of a celebrity doesn't make you a celebrity). If the fellow is so substantial, and I'm sure he is, he must have actually argued some significant cases or won some substantial claims. These would make him worthy of a biographical stub, IMO. Not to be trivial, but the valet to the stars probably exists, too. Geogre 15:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a partial list at http://www.schleimerlaw.com/trial.htm . Granted, none of them are world-changing trials like OJ or Lindbergh, but several of them made the news, and at least 2 of them are famous enough that I've heard of them despite not following law or celebrities closely (specifically, the ZZ Top one and the John Landis one where someone was killed in a helecopter shooting the Twilight Zone movie). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Hes the kind of lawyer other lawyers want to be. Truely a shark amongst the little fishies. Hamster Sandwich 20:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seems to be less here than meets the eye -- the "client list" is not terribly accurate, since it includes clients of his previous employer on whose cases he worked in unidentified capacities -- and few of the listed cases on his firm's website appear noteworthy. There are, no doubt, quite a few real estate agents in California with even more impressive client lists, but no one, I think, would advocate their listing here.Judge Magney 13:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to have had an impact on US law. Klonimus 23:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Cross-space redirect made redundant, so not really any need for this VfD to run through. Hedley 01:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:X-Troll

Article already exists in article space. This appears to be redundant copy in the wrong area. Buffyg 00:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony SidawayTalk 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lfyre

Programming language still in beta on sourceforge. humblefool® 01:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are all sorts of languages that don't get articles because they're not popular, significant, or used. 1,000 downloads is not at all sufficient to demonstrate adoption, and then there are no notices given in trade magazines, etc. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.og. Further, Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or announcing your wicked cool language: when other documented sources speak of it, it will be time to consider an article. I don't know why voters are suddenly having so much trouble telling Wikipedia from Everything2, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, not a primary. Geogre 15:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org, and Wikipedia is not the place for this article. --Carnildo 19:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for subjects that have not yet demonstrated notability. Buffyg 14:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the "stop giving more slack to technical articles than non-technical ones" principle. Nandesuka 22:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Carnildo said. "Wikipedia is not advertising" is particularly prominent here. JRM · Talk 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside: having articles on things that are not even established yet does harm Wikipedia. It shouldn't become a place where the latest, greatest software projects can be announced/promoted, no matter how neutrally this is done. JRM · Talk 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  19:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No argument. siafu 22:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Japanese history

It's only just been created, but I can't see this ever working, and I'm not sure that it's been done for any other countries. History of Japan would presumably contain anything that goes here, and theres no other Wikipedia glossaries right now. Hedley 01:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep valuable resource started by contributor with a long history of developing significant articles. Wikipedia has enormous numbers of lists (and a glossary is a list with a more specialized name and function) that organize information in ways that other articles do not. History of Japan is too long and organized by period. Fg2 01:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am not sure why this fails to work. While I am afraid that it might get too long in the future, we still have to see this for a while. I created this in the same manner as Glossary of object-oriented programming and similar glossaries in math. I agree that this may be unprecedented, but then that might mean that we need similar glossaries for other countries as well. Finally, as Fg2 pointed, this is certainly differently from History of Japan as this one lists historical terms not narrate the story. -- Taku 02:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. TakuyaMurata, given his prolific output, would naturally find glossary pages a useful tool. They aren't common on Wikipedia, but they provide an efficient means for grouping together lots of related (but different, and hence unlistable) articles. Binadot 02:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no criteria on Wikipedia:Deletion_policy that would justify deleting this page. Glossaries are clearly encyclopedic. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but suggest a rename to List of terms in Japanese history, or something similar, which would clarify its place in Wikipedia. At present, this is not a "glossary" as I understand it -- it does not define terms except by their Japanese equivalent. -- Visviva 02:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'nuff said. David Hoag 06:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is at least one other Wikipedia Glossary: Glossary of game theory --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 08:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think, however, it needs a lot more terms listed (including perhaps ones without Wikipedia links!) to warrant keeping in the long term. TheDeadlyShoe 08:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wikipedia already has a large number of glossaries (see [1]), and knowing the creator of this page, I have no doubt that this glossary will prove to be useful and encyclopedic. BlankVerse ∅ 11:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. needs alot more links, but no reason for deletion, just for editing. Uber nemo 15:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The difference from the main history articles is perfectly clear. CalJW 13:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wow. Just found this. Nice. - Tεxτurε 19:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about fetal expulsion

Currently has three songs; I can't imagine the list growing much longer. tregoweth 01:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony SidawayTalk 22:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Educatethepoor

Looks like a Yahoo hosted page that (at the time of this writing) only contains one sentence. There doesn't seem to be any content here, besides the good intentions Rx StrangeLove 02:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of songs with scat-singing

There are way too many songs with scat-singing in. Genres of music generally can't have lists of songs. This list has barely been started, but even so - Does all 22 tracks from two Scatman John albums, with all their remixes, covers and variations get added to here? Does every jazz song with scat singing in go here? Lists such as this with never be completed, aren't been contributed to, and don't belong on an encyclopedia. Hedley 02:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_29&oldid=19825490"