Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 13 September 2005 (Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansion theory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

September 13

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. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz songs

What a stupid song list. Despite its encyclopeic value, it is unmaintainable plus there are probably millions of jazz tracks.

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. Thryduulf 21:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy

Non-notable, tiny denomination with only four communities.[1] Multiple articles have been created relating to this group, including a whole category, making this group and things particular to it appear much more prominent than is actual. Other articles created pertaining to this group: Christocephalous, Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion, Gracetide, Society of Saint Timothy, Timothean Rite, and Titusian Rite. Appears to be essentially a group of vanity articles written by one of the group's clergy. —Preost talk contribs 00:00, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Evenif it's small, I don't have a problem with it, except that it is unverified. The only evidence that I can find in a quick check is its website, this article and a few board posts. I'll change my vote if this changes. --Apyule 05:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As you say, tiny and non-notable and will probably go the way of most such groups in the next couple of years. I'm therefore almost inclined to simply wait until it goes away and delete the articles then. In any event, it clearly doesn't deserve the prominent mention it had in articles like Divine Liturgy where the editor tried to put it on par with churches like Eastern Orthodoxy. Absent that, even the plethora of articles and categories is kind of lost in Wiki's sheer volume and it loses much of its earlier prominence. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If we use Google for general subjects, Allmusic for bands, I use the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church for theological matters, and this group doesn't make it there. Granted, it would be nice if there were another not-paper specialty site for religious subjects, but from what I can gather this is a revival of a fairly ancient...alternative view...of the monophysite sort. Too much e-presence and not enough real presence. When they are widely documented and discussed by real world sources, they will be appropriate. Until then, unverifiable. Geogre 12:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — ceejayoz ★ 14:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This group appears to be sustained mainly by their own network of webpages. There is no secondary source coverage, which means this group of articles is non-verifiable and is inherently POV. Nothing asserted in these articles has any independent verification. The "Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion" seems to be currently sustained on a geocities homepage, and doesn't seem to be distinguishable from a single-person project. Sdedeo 16:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Anderson, Windy City Stories

Pages about an alleged work of fiction by an author called "R.E. Hancock", created by User:Rynehancock. Search of Amazon turned up no such author. User also added listings of other characters to Evansville, Indiana and List of famous people from Indianapolis. Hoax. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete; books and their authors must be at least be published to be in Wikipedia! Ziggurat 01:14, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Hill State School

Sub-stub, very few Google or Yahoo hits, little chance to grow into anything but a yellow pages entry. Also no events or people of note attached to this primary school. Also per Schools for Deletion. Delete. Gateman1997 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So is my house. But that doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Cmadler 11:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I think you're on shaky ground there. There are lots of ways to verify a house. If Cmadler's real world name happens to be what you'd think, and if he or she cares to disclose the city in which they live—for a slightly rarer name the state would be enough—and if it's in the U.S.,you could use an online white pages like anywho or switchboard to find their street address. Depending on exactly where they live there's a good chance you could get enough of an image through Terraserver or other online aerial photography sources to verify the existence of the house. In certain downtown areas of major cities, www.a9.com has streetlevel imagery of entire streets, Pinckney Street in this case, and you can "walk" up and down and see some of the nice private residences on Pinckney Street. Are they all worthy of individual articles? You could use one of the online real estate databases to find out whether that house had been bought or sold in the last twenty years or so, and for how much. And that's just for starters. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can that importance be verified? Chick Bowen 19:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it can I don't see the relevance. My grocery store is important to the indigenous population it serves (which incidently is MUCH larger then the community this school serves) but that was deleted. Being "important" to a few locals is not reason enough for a worldwide encyclopedia entry any more then existing is. Gateman1997 19:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Point or no, it had an equal or better claim to an article then this or several school articles. Yet everyone made some great arguments as to why it should be deleted... and those arguments can be carried over to this article. Many schools are worthy of articles, but this isn't one of them.Gateman1997 20:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Carnildo 21:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important for education in outback Queensland. --Vsion 21:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When did Cairns become the outback?--Porturology 04:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's good in a way to see that the deletionists are increasingly resorting to nominating primary school articles. CalJW 21:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A sign of things to come, I think. Even primary schools are regularly surviving the AfD process, which will likely cause a moderate increase in the nominations of primary schools in response as attempts to peel off a few articles through attrition against the most vulernable. Obviously, poorly written articles about primary schools are the most vulernable of all, because some votes will be cast against the school before it can be re-written and cleaned up - some of those voters will never come back to change votes, even if they might otherwise have voted to keep in the first place. Nonetheless, YTD school articles AfD statistics: 277 nominated, 228 kept, 37 deleted.--Nicodemus75 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All schols are inherantly notable. --Celestianpower hab 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take this, and all the other substub articles created via links from the education section of the Cairns, Queensland and merge them into one article on education in the area. Which might actually be useful for something other than a child saying "oh look, our school has an article" and obsessives counting the number of stubs they can create. I am assuming here that we're actually trying to create a useful encyclopedia here rather than tiny, pathetic, feeble stubs about everything in the off-chance that something might happen to enable us to write a decent article. I mean, what do we have on this - it's a school, it's in Cairns, it has a headteacher. You could put the useful info on these schools in a table - name, age range, size. Which might actually be useful for people wanting to look up education in Cairns. But I suppose that takes more effort than just creating a bunch of sub-stubs which take far, far longer to look at than information on one page, and in all probability won't get maintained. After all, the time of people reading Wikipedia is NOT valueless. Average Earthman 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current article is not a sub-stub and is more useful for anyone who needs to know about the school itself than a merged page would be, so in fact it is saving them time. Note that it was created by an anon from a red link, so presumably it was a helpful outsider rather than an obsessive wikipedia editor. Kappa 23:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim that this is a sub-stub is currently false. Google counting seems to me like a somewhat bizarre method to determine the encyclopedic nature of a school. This is a perfectly good stub and already after only five days it's undergoing active growth. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would still classify it as a substub. There is no more information that is of relevance that has been added since the VFD was tagged. However I will note that the only development on this article (however miniscule and irrelevant) has come as a result OF the VfD.Gateman1997 01:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We only delete articles that are incapable of improvement. An article that shows visible improvement during a deletion discussion, well... You also claim that there is "no more information of relevance that has been added" since you listed it for deletion. This is blatantly false. Since being listed, the article has acquired a reference, the date it was founded, the coalition of which it is a member, and the name of the headmistress. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The addition of information to an article, caused because of an AfD listing, is obviously not a criteria for deletion. The argument being constructed here is: "the only development on this article has come as a result OF the AfD - therefore the article should be deleted". This inherently fellacious argument does not even merit a response.--Nicodemus75 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of which demonstrate notability nor provide more information than could reasonably be included in a merged page of Cairns schools. By the way, when I saw the earlier reference to "Schools in Cairns", I wondered how well one could learn amid a pile of rocks... Barno 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lack of "notability" is not a valid criteria for the deletion of schools.--Nicodemus75 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course it is. All articles on Wikipedia have to have some notability attached to them. Schools are no exception. But that was not the basis of this AfD, but rather the fact this article can never grow into anything but a glorified stub as there is little information relating to this school of an encyclopedic nature.Gateman1997 22:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is false. As per Wikipedia Policy at WP:DEL, Lack of Notability is not a listed criteria for deletion, nor is being obscure, nor is being "unimportant". It is misleading to make the claim that "All articles on Wikipedia have to have some notability attached to them. Schools are no exception" in large measure because you are simply applying your own standard of "notability" to an article you feel should be deleted. In any event, my response was not made on the basis of your nomination, but rather to several votes on this page, including the one to which I responded directly prior to your reply. Further, the article has already "grown" beyond what it was when nominated. Assertions that it will only be a "glorified stub", and "there is little information relating to this school of an encyclopedic nature" are not objective facts - only subjective statements. Please prove your assertion that "there is little information relating to this school of an encyclopedic nature" with something a little more convincing than a "Google search".--Nicodemus75 23:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no demonstration of notability. Jonathunder 01:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Permanent public institution in existence for 60+ years.--Centauri 02:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no demonstration of notability. Ambi 03:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A school, and a notable one at that. Pburka 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Unfocused 20:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no demonstration of non-notability. --Nicodemus75 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-written, in-depth article about an interesting school. JYolkowski // talk 02:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep! 24ip | lolol 19:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this article is really good so erasing it is not the right answer Yuckfoo 07:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Decent length article, and schools are protected under precedent. Add an infobox and a picture and you'll bring me up to Keep. Karmafist 21:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good article. -- DS1953 02:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously the article has grown well past what the nom said it ever could. It has improved, and will in the future. Easy keep. --rob 13:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and please stop nominating schools. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia content is not and should not be determined based on the arbitrary application of such vague, relative concepts as "importance" or "notability". Keep.--Gene_poole 13:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A school, and a non-stub article. --Mysidia (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable. freestylefrappe 02:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inlan

non-notable forum, and probably vanity (was crated by user Inlan)--Shanel 06:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of Man

Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 06:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine let me borrow one of their albums today, I had never heard of them. Maybe he knows something about the band and can add to the page to make it less lame.

More eyeballs needed. I don't feel comfortable actioning a divided debate with so little participation. -Splash 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Thryduulf 21:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Casper and Friends episodes

Casper and Friends is an anthology show made up of reruns of Famous Studios cartoons produced to run in front of Paramount Pictures films from the mid-1940s to the 1960s. As such, that makes this list dubios on two accounts: (a) the actual broadcast order of the individual cartoons broadcast over the half hour has varied significantly since 1962, making this list inherently innaccurate (and also fueling the erroneous notion that these cartoons were made for television; in addition, there's no source provided and I can't seem to find one myself) and (b) Casper and Friends does not account for all of the Famous Studios Casper the Friendly Ghost, Little Audrey, etc. cartoons. I'd suggest a simple deletion; there's nothing to merge or redirect. I would also suggest the eventual addition of filmographies for the pages on the original Famous/Paramount cartoon series. FuriousFreddy 07:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Notable TV series that was responsible for introducing many viewers to these cartoons. I believe the Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Show has an article (though I cannot locate the proper title format) which sets the precedent. Perhaps merge the episode list with the main article if it doesn't make it too long. The dates given are dubious, however, as I remember seeing Casper and Friends in the 1970s. 23skidoo 15:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a nomination for the deletion of the article on Casper and Friends; this is just for the episode list. Certainly there should be (and is) a Casper and Friends article, but this is not it. The article on the Bugs Bunny/RoadRunner Show and all of the other broadcast Looney Tunes anthology series is at The Bugs Bunny Show. Now, the original 1960 - 1962 version of that show has a verifiable episode list as far as which cartoons were shown on what date, because new wraparounds were created to integrate them. However, there is no way to accurately track what Looney Tunes and Merie Melodies have aired on the spin-off Bugs Bunny Shows unless someone logged each broadcast. There should not be an episode list for those future versions (in its stead, we do have a proper Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography here). As far as any dates given being dubios (in what way?), Casper and Friends first aired as The Harveytoons Show in 1962, and has been on the air, in one form or another, since then. However, the cartoons included on the show were made by Famous Studios and Paramount Pictures between 1943 and 1961 for movie theatres. My point is that this list in and of itself is incorrect, unless it properly notate what version of Casper and Friends, and from what time period, it derives its information from. --FuriousFreddy 18:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More eyeballs needed. I don't feel comfortable actioning a divided debate with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Responding to FuriousFreddy). If the list is incorrect, then it should be corrected. I'm speaking from the POV that episode lists have precedent, and even for anthology/repackaged shows like this one, I think it can be done if someone has access to the information. The only other alternative is to merge it with the original article, which wouldn't solve anything. 23skidoo 15:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (mark for relevance). As far as I can tell, this page provides a lot of information and only needs an explanation of what show exactly it's talking about. Ashibaka (tock) 00:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, and somewhat informative, if only by identifying the names of the episodes. If the dates can't be figured out, note that at the top, or alpha order them. -- BD2412 talk 00:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: FuriousFreddy's nomination is good, but it requires some reading. This is an anthology show, and not original content. In the 1970s and late, late 1960s, there were multiple repackaging shows like this, and so an episode list is largely vaccuous. I.e. there were no episodes, because it was an anthology. An "episode list" of the actual cartoons would be another matter, but, since the original cartoons were not created for television, it would be impossible. In other words, the "episode list" is actively misinformation. Geogre 12:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Thryduulf 21:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Knite

Completing VfD lising - no vote---Doc (?) 13:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nn. Possible advertising/vanity. Not sure if the muslim part is verifiable either.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • She is not the first Muslim Porn Star. There is evidence of this on the net. There is/was an article on YNOT where Sahara's ex mentor was quoted in December 2004 as having worked with other Anglo Indian Muslim models before her. This article was published some time before Sahara decided to announce she was the first and therefore her stating that she is the first, is a blatent untruth. (unsigned vote by User:84.66.112.173)
  • Delete NN. And since when did a porn model or porn actress automatically become a porn "star"? Denni☯ 23:31, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relevant consideration is whether she has appeared in commercially distributed films viewed by 5,000 people. The fact that she has been mentioned in the Sun is indication that she has some profile as does the issue as to whether or not she is a pioneer. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search for thos woman shows just 293 hits see [3] This shows a lack of notability given the general presence on the Internet. As far as the query from the anonymous user the 5000 was from an old version of WP:Bio which appears to have been changed for entertainment figures - very much for the better as far as I'm concerned. Capitalistroadster 08:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC) A question Capitalistroadster...[reply]

You are in Australia and the model being discussed is in the UK, so where do you get your figure of "viewed by 5,000 people?" I'm not voting to keep or delete the emtry, I just feel that if there is one, it should be the truthful one and not one made up by the model for the press. This is meant to be an on line encyclopedia and not a comic.

Capitalistroadster...

Sorry to have to correct you... If you do a search on Google for the words "sahara knite" the figure of "293" is for listings containing these two words, and not the number of hits or searches. If you go through the full list you will see many might be for "sahara" as the desert and not for "sahara+knite". There are also listings for "knite" without "sahara". Also, being listed on Google by name means nothing. Being listed high on any search engine is a success when you can use unrelated terms, ignoring a persons name, and they appear. A particular search without using her name on MSN has her listed at #1 and this is a search by the nature of her work, which I won't give details, but I can assure you is the most popular search term used everywhere on the net.

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. Thryduulf 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Beckers

Not notable. It's not because somebody has been on the telly once (or even a couple of times) that this person deserves an encyclopedia article. This is probably a vanity page created by a friend. I'm surprised it takes so long to get this page deleted. Karl Stas 17:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. I just said that I don't think that working in any one profession automatically makes one notable. I was talking about professional boxing, but I guess the same has to go for opera, even though I happen to think being a trained opera singer is far more remarkable than being able to punch some other fella's lights out.---CH (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble)

Darkside Industries

Delete Vanity page, non-notable corporation Atratus 05:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC) Delete Vanity page created by user:Darkside88. Quentin mcalmott 02:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 03:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DASH KIT

Delete This article is a promotion for an online site. Information on dash kits would be more appropriate on a car article, if at all.

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Thryduulf 22:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dennison Bollay

VfD tag added by User:Gwalla but nomination never completed. Completing now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 18:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More eyeballs needed. -Splash 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know why the vfd tag was added, but he seems somewhat notable to me. Ashibaka (tock) 00:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Friday (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to cleanup (Anyone remember that place?) I didn't learn anything about him, really, or why his biography is important and necessary. What I did learn was in reverse order, with the topic sentence underselling the subject and the accomplishments paying too much heed to unquantifiable matters (poorly explained) and not enough to what seems to be most significant. If not improved to a coherent, WP:BIO-compliant biography at the end of the cleanup month, delete and wait for someone who will write a real bio that provides rationale. Geogre 12:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DuckyP

Article is an advertisement, and it only gets 39 hits on google. CryptoDerk 17:03, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 17:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Busa Alexandru

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI TO WIKTIONARY. Thryduulf 22:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grunt work

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

X1LLa

Looks like nonsense to me, certainly not encyclopedic. Austrian 21:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Utterly unverifiable. Denni☯ 01:29, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Equanimity

Article has no content, simply a word and a link to wiktionary

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable actioning with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain This is becoming an issue bigger than just deleting this article, and I don't want to get involved in setting a precedent on it. --Apyule 04:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merged Marskell 10:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Europe This Week

Media spam, nothing notable. --Hooperbloob 06:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 delete inc nominator, 3 keep, 1 merge). I have since merged and redirected this article to Tiny web servers as suggested in the merge vote. Thryduulf 22:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleW

Compleing vfd - no vote --Doc (?) 22:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Low Google results. Little notability. ArmadniGeneral 19:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what is the problem ? There are plenty of (commercial, not well-known) web servers in the category Web Servers. As this is free software, there is no commercial interest.... (Unsigned by User: 84.160.235.16
    • One problem is that no-one apart from its own author has published anything on the subject of this product. Whereas for the likes of Apache, IIS, and thttpd there is a whole cottage industry of third party books, web sites, training courses, how-to guides, and so forth. I've written an HTTP server, which I give away at no charge. Just like the subject of this article, it has nothing written about it that doesn't have me as the source. That I have no commercial interest in it having an encyclopaedia article does not eliminate all problems for an encyclopaedia article about it.

      "free software" does not equate to "no commercial interest", by the way. Witness Stronghold. That the subject of this article is free software does not mean that there is no commercial interest. Uncle G 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Somewhat useful, although not very well-known. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement for NN product. Whether the product is useful is irrelevant to whether anyone is actually using it or talking about it to a substantial degree. Postdlf 05:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Stevey7788. --Apyule 05:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously.
  • Weak delete: The product is not significant. It has a place in a list of products, just as some guitarist deserves a mention in his band's article. Does it need a separate article? Only if it's particularly notable in some way (first, best, most-used, etc.). What tipped to delete for me was the "Download it" link. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org, and the article above that "download now" link looked like download.com's product description rather than an article. Advertising for a product that is not substantial, but I have no objections to its being mentioned in an article up the taxonomic tree. Geogre 13:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just does not belong in an encyclopedia.Voice of All (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shows no sign of notability, where as existence and utility are not sufficient criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's job isn't to go out and find little known products for users, and then write pages about them. That said, it would be fine as a (non-linked) mention in a list of web servers or something of the like. (unsigned comment by Icelight)
  • I can locate no published work about the product that is independent of the product's own author xyrself. This product thus does not satisfy the criteria in WP:CORP. Delete. Uncle G 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack. Thryduulf 22:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PetsOvernight.com

Primary source, and on its own, is not notable enough for its own page. If anything, only the important info should be placed on the Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack page [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 22:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable acting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you would have this merged (all of you). There is no notable information on this page that isn't on the GTA3 page already, except for, as I listed above, a primary source of a copywrite (a no-no). The tone proves that this is unencyclopedic, and all information can safely just be added to the GTA3 (soundtrack) page. Please state a furthur reason for your "merge" vote, or I will assume you have not read both, or are not familiar with the subject matter. Thank you for voting, and happy editing, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 11:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will give a detailed description of what I think sould be done and why.
  1. Add missing info from this article to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack, notably actually provide a link to the website itself.
  2. Slightly expand the commercials section of Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack to give a better description of all the commercials, not just this one.
  3. Delete this article to remove the copyvio.
  4. Create a redirect page from here to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack#Commercials so that people can still find the info.
I hope that this clears my vote up a bit, and it may apply to other people too. --Apyule 11:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I believe there was a link on the GTA3 soundtrack page before this page was added, but I'm not sure. In any event, I shall re-add it. I agree with your commercials stance, and in whatever little free time I can, I shall review the commercials and add info about them. I believe the article should be deleted instead of redirected, simply because I doubt many people would search for or link to this article, but "redirects are a cheap and easy way to inflate your edit count" or something like that, so if the consensis is merge/redirect, I shall do the honors (unless Splash would like to do them). Thanks for your vote, and thank you for expanding your vote. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 23:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gene's gooch

Reads like a hoax, names not in Google NeilN 23:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 03:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mandingorra

Delete. Smells hoaxish. Google turns up no support. FreplySpang (talk) 23:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete - although this might break GFDL. To sort this I have merged the histories of Contessa Brewer/Temp and Contessa Brewer, leaving the most recent version (prior to the merge) of the latter as the current version. Thryduulf 22:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contessa Brewer/Temp

Apparently a draft version of "parent" article, now seems to be redundant. Alai 00:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precall

Vanity neologism. Despite requests made on its talk page one week ago, there is no evidence of the general use of this term anywhere outside this book. Also, no evidence that the author is "of" the university cited in the article (in staff/student directories), and no evidence that the book cited in the article is not a vanity publication (as per no original research) - especially when details for purchasing it are advertised through the article! Ziggurat 00:53, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Thryduulf 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canon PowerShot A95

Advertising. Surely Canon does not need to hawk its wares in Wiki? Delete Eddie.willers 01:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Poe

Suspicion lurks that this is only here due to the dread "I Was There" Wiki Memoir project, and no real evidence of notability beyond the proverbial average college professor (though I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that). Alai 01:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Area2

Who? Where? Why? What? Whom? When? Delete this jibberjabber. Eddie.willers 01:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 03:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik the Panda

Unlike 'Erik The Red', totally non-notable and unencyclopaedic. Delete. Eddie.willers 01:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Turned into a redirect and kept. Rx StrangeLove 05:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interslice

Was marked for speedy deletion, but does not qualify because it looks more like unsourced neologism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done getting "cromulent" in there, but the redirect is pretty pointles without adding "interslice" to the list of words itself. Is this worth doing, or should the redirect be removed? CLW 08:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Context of Men's Meat Consumption

Was marked for speedy deletion, but does not quite qualify because, as the message left on its talk page says, the first paragraph looks like the beginning of unsourced, original research. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like it would be original research... but they forgot to put the research part in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like it's going to turn into a last-nights-sociology-essay or something worse. -Splash 02:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be made into a properly sourced article. Friday (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is clearly not finished though. If it can be fixed into a serious artilce(which I guess it could be), then it can stay.Voice of All (talk) 04:32, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now, before it turns into an essay's worth of original research. Or delete afterwords as original research, either way is fine. Aquillion 06:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contributes nothing. Obviously the beginning of a thought never finished. Could be informative if expanded beyond a mere article template.
  • Delete per Andrew Paul 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If and when someone can produce a real, non-original-research article, they can re-introduce it. What is there now is not worth keeping, even as a stub. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Owen× and others. There could be an article on some subject along these lines. For example, consider Jeremy Rifkin's book, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, ISBN 0452269520. Not that Rifkin is necessarily... well... can you say "point of view?" Beef has had symbolic importance and has been associated with virility, as well as wealth and high social status, in many cultures, including ours. But this isn't a good start on such an article. To begin with, the title reads like an essay title. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Flame Marauder

This fictional teen superhero created by comic-book fanboy does not seem to have any third party references to assert its significance. I cannot find any credible Google hits or other sources. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hotnnow

They came; they cooked; they went bust and got deleted. Eddie.willers 02:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bleak Cabal

nn fancruft Delete --205.188.116.202 03:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was me who nominated that article for deletion in one of those AOL IP Numbers after i accidently log out and didn't noticed --Aranda56 03:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 06:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lirs

Vanity/hoax

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. Rx StrangeLove 06:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrosius Fjord

This article sounds bizarre if not nonsense and is extremely small. A google search provides only exact mirrors of the wikipedia text. Malcolm Morley 03:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 06:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GTF Ares

nn fancruft not well written and one of the most minor ships in the game. Delete or Merge --Aranda56 03:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 06:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Only Inn

This comes here as a result of undeletion on VfU. Note that it has been previously AfD'd twice: here (deleted) and here (no consensus) — there were some concerns on VfU about the closure of the 2nd. The earlier revisions (not the same as the present article) have been restored to provide participants here with the ability to study its expansion. Abstain.-Splash 03:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Thryduulf 06:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Novitiate

nn, a mess and clearly never will be cleaned up, but more importantly, this page is on a particular example of a pre-novitiate and should not be named "pre-novitiate" Chick Bowen 03:57, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS so KEEP by default. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Los Angeles power outage

As a Californian, I can say first-hand that this is not notable. Maybe it's notable enough for Wikinews, but not here. The outage lasted only a few hours; this kind of thing happens every day somewhere in the developed world. The only reason it's a news story is because it happened in LA. How long would "2005 Bakersfield power outage" last? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 04:09, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete or merge with an article on large power outages. Apologies for my last vote too. --Apyule 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'd always just assumed that it was GFDL too. Good thing I've never copied anything over there myself. --Apyule 01:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable. it's just news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W0rd (talk • contribs)
  • keep the vunerablity of crucial infrastructure for a vast metropolis is very very notable and wikiworthy. Sabine's Sunbird 01:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article on that subject would be more wikiworthy for sure, but this is about one particular blackout, and doesn't really touch on wider problems of electricity supply in Los Angeles. It reads like a news story and tells the reader nothing but the what, where and when of an event that is not notable in itself. If someone wants to write an article about the wider issue they can go ahead, but this is not that article. We have a fairly good article at California electricity crisis if anyone wants to get to work expanding our discussion of the issues surrounding that. — Trilobite 08:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd have no complaints if the article was merged somewhere appropriate, or moved and rewritten on the subject. This is only one symptom of the vunerability I spoke of, but I still think it warants a mention. Sabine's Sunbird 14:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a really significant event. I have a hard time imagining anyone finding this article useful in a couple of months time. An article on how vulnerable the infrastructure is (with this event being cited as an example) would be encyclopedic, but this article is not it. In addition, I don't believe that every single news event is encyclopedic- most news events are transient, and only of importance and relevance for a short period of time. An encyclopedia should cover subjects that have long term significance. Sortan 03:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into California electricity crisis or California energy management. Stations such as KABC 7 reported on this live, for what I believe is over 2 hours, possible 3? and this is not like a power interuption where a neighborhood had the power go out for a second and then all the street lights blinked red, this was over half of the City of Los Angeles, and caused street lights across the city to go completely black for hours, causing street backups worse then a bad rush hour, and this was at 1 pm, which should be light traffic in most parts. and this also affected freeways somewhat by having freeway exits backed up. Yes it is not as big as the 2003 North America blackout, but it is bigger then any average blackout. If 2/3 of New York City had the power go out for hours, would you delete the article on that? I think not.-- AlexTheMartian | Talk 21:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I already voted, but someone seemed to want my transwiki comment to invalidate the vote, so I'm voting again with an even better reason why: This black out was given so much coverage because beforehand someone claimed that an attack on Los Angeles was in the works, it was on day after the anni of 9/11 AND It just goes to show how this country is wildly obsessed with fear and terror... it shows how the government and current issues combine into hysteria, paranoia, and a paralyzation of what would have been an easy to deal with and un-notable event... but this is a good illustration of the horrid decade we live in. -- NatsukiGirl\talk 22:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can this blackout reasonably be considered part of the California electricity crisis? If so, then I would change my vote to merge. I mean to ask, specifically, whether this is more connected to the general crisis than as just another blackout in California.--Pharos 23:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems likely to become socially significant. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • should not be merged into California electricity crisis -- that event was a failed deregulation experiment which occurred in 2000-2001. This article is about a blackout in 2005. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly, the comments of some other people, with things like "there are articles with less notability than this that are not on VfD, so keep" are ridiculous. Maybe those artciles should be. Maybe you people should go and find them, and VfD nominate them. But the status of "other aticles" does not in any way influence what happens to this article. We have a clear Deletion policy, which is the sole determinant of whether or not to delete this article. The fact is that this article fails the "ten year test". In ten year's time, people will not remember, care about or even want to know about a 30 minute power outage in LA. As such, Wikipedia is not the place for stuff like LA Power Outage 2005. Thanks to whoever created this article for their enterprise and effort; unluckily this is not the place for it. And remember, if it becomes a big issue (eg someone famous died because their life support got turned off or whatever), we can always recreate the article. Batmanand 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LordBob and, especially, Batmanand. Nandesuka 11:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it was a quick reference in another article it could be suitable, but it’s not encyclopaedic as a standalone article. If someone wants to add the event to Wikinews I encourage them to do so. Defsac 12:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. *drew 01:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A news event that is not encyclopedically notable. Quale 02:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. basically a non-event. Power outages shouldn't rate a Wikipedia article unless 1) They last for at least a day for most areas and 2) cover a very large area (usually affecting more than one power provider). Although this outage affected a large part of the City of Los Angeles, it didn't spill over to any place not served by the LA Dept. of Water and Power, and most areas had the power back within a few hours. BlankVerse ∅ 03:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lving in Scotland, where power cuts are non-existent, it should be noted that even although there will be numerous power cuts in days to come for the city of LA; this should be noted. Possibly take it to another page like: Spectember 12 2005 Los Angeles power outage
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. Thryduulf 06:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Villains of Imran Series

Not encyclopedic, at its current state, the article has only a single sentence, in the form of a comment from the author

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

The result of the debate was cancelled, the page was moved and re-Vfd'd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blue Hell. Please vote there. GarrettTalk 01:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Blue Hell"

I'm a huge fan of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, but I really don't think Blue Hell is noteworthy enough; The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time's "Beta Quest" would probably be far more noteworthy, but even that doesn't have an article yet. GarrettTalk 04:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While this page refers to the "Blue Hell" page, that is a redirect to Blue Hell which appears to be the subject of the vfd. Usrnme h8er 11:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 13:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haylea Blundell

Non-notable junior gymnast. DS 04:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 14:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Stir

Non notable band that only lasted for 1 year -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfy, Moving it to users space. Rx StrangeLove 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Isbell

Page appears to have been written by the subject of the page himself (vanity page). I'm not sure he's notable for inclusion in the Wikipedia, either. 71.133.20.252 06:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filemon "Momoy" Canete

Article establishes little or no claim to notability; Google search "Filemon Canete" returns 55 unique hits. Paul 06:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this, the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to establish a consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agalmics

Non-notable neologism; there are two WP articles about "Robert Levin," although neither is the one who is credited with coining this word; 86 unique Google hits. Paul 06:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this, the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to establish a consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 15:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Things

Vanity Page

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. Rx StrangeLove 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AJAr

Advertisement JoanneB 07:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 16:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Ridge Rock Festival

Subliterate substub about a rock concert that never actually happened. Delete. Calton | Talk 07:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, I see that JvaGoddess's first contribution to Wikipedia was 13 December 2001. (!). So let's just say "please don't bite people." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet. I sorta like it. The question in my mind is whether this was a notable fiasco. Was it mentioned in the national press? In _Billboard_ or _Rolling Stone_ or publications that chronicle rock concerts? That is certainly one notable bunch of musicians. Do biographies about them mention the failed concert? The article is so badly written I can't actually tell whether the event took place or not. "Rock Doctor William Abruzzi ... was there to treat bad LSD trips, and said there were more bad trips at Powder Ridge per capata, than any other music festival he'd ever worked." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mark for cleanup of course. See this interesting article in The Hartford Advocate. These two paragraphs in the article convince me the event was notable:
"Powder Ridge was a disaster waiting to happen, and it happened," Middletown author William Manchester wrote in his 1974 book The Glory and the Dream .
"A cloud of marijuana hung over the central portion of the resort last night, and drug dealers sold their wares openly. Some moved through the crowd crying, 'Acid, mescaline, acid, mescaline,'" the New York Times reported.
So, it was mentioned in a Manchester's quite notable book (subtitled "A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972" and still in print,) and it was mentioned in The New York Times. A tip of the hat to JvaGoddess for starting the article and roughing it in. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. Since writing this, I've dug up a copy of Manchester's book. It isn't just a brief mention in passing, he spends nearly two pages on it. He considers it important in relation to the whole rise and fall of the hippie-rock-concert phenomenon. Mentions that despite the court injunction the promoters kept hinting that the festival might take place anyway, and people believed it because basically that is what had happened with Woodstock, which had been banned from its planned location and moved elsewhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able to find a reference to this in the August 10, 1970 issue of Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly (Vol. 50, Iss. 32; p. 3). The article in which the reference appears, "Rated "X"; The Movie Business These Days Is Not for Widows and Orphans," is about the poor financial showing of a documentary about Woodstock, but the article itself begins by saying, "When last month's Powder Ridge Rock Festival failed, so to speak, to come off, no one had more of a bummer than an enterprising company of independent moviemakers from Hollywood . . . But the big-time, big-name music--raison d'etre of any rock fest--was missing, offically turned off at the last minute by Middlefield's city fathers." According to an article in the June 30, 1985 issue of the Chicago Tribune about the Live Aid concert, 30,000 fans showed up at Powder Ridge in 1970 even though it was cancelled. That people were talking about it in the news media 15 years later is evidence of notability. Crypticfirefly 04:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there was an article in Life magazine at the time about the concert fiasco. See [9]. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable non-event, widely discussed and covered at the time, in the context of Woodstock, Altamont, etc. and rock-festival culture. I had contemporaneous knowledge of it via mass media (TV, radio, newspapers) even though I was not in the region. MCB 06:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Great stuff, hope I won't be alone in nibbling away at this article when I get time. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is subliterate, then clean it up User:Calton. "Subliterate" is no reason to delete. This was a highly notable event that failed at the last minute with thousands of fans showing up. --AI 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK, this rock concert was no Woodstock, but it is notable because it demonstrates what could happen (with drugs, general rowdiness etc.) if a gig isn't organised properly, and proves to be a commercial failure at the last minute. Andrew 11:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla mask

WP:NOT DELETE--MONGO 07:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the 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 (Wiwaxia, I don't think those two are the same person). Marblespire 03:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Downes

nominate for reasons of non-notability. The fellow's IMDB page shows only three credits and a comment about how he DJ's for a radio station. I'm a big fan of Halo, but, still. Marblespire 03:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) [EDIT] Oh yeah, I vote Delete. (Duh. =) )

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the Stephen Downes who was arrested after wearing a "Give peace a chance" T-shirt at the mall. Wiwaxia 22:08, 27 Apr 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 Speedy delete. Thryduulf 12:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zaac Margin

NN, nonsense Dismas|(talk) 09:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 17:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Pittsburgh Survey

Unless I missed something, this Pittsburgh Survey is NN. The real Pittsburgh Survey, from what the google search tells me, may be notable enough but it has nothing to do with a whorehouse as this article describes. I'm in favor of deleting until someone can write a real article about the Pittsburgh Survey. Dismas|(talk) 09:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 17:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isallobar

Dic. Def. Dismas|(talk) 09:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Udun band

Non-notable, possibly hoax band. Posted by a user with "previous". -- 82.40.180.42 10:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxxoline

No google matches or even a spelling suggestion. Dismas|(talk) 10:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I figured it could be a trampoline brand, but even then, you'd suppose it was mentioned somewhere (no mention in a lot of other big search engines either). The article claimed it to be "One of the most favorite sports in the Netherlands". I can't imagine that to be true: I'm Dutch myself and have never heard of it, neither has Google. Therefore, I changed the wording of that first sentence, so future voters won't be misled. --JoanneB 13:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pieces of the Moon

Appears to be a promo for a not-yet completed animation. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 12:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retards In Heat

Non-notable band. Only gets 221 google hits, and it has no allmusic.com presence. Graham 12:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of banking

It seems a bit opinionated and possibly original research... UniReb 12:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

  • The article still is an outrage and so are the many lying and hostile Wikipedia "contributers"
    • I knew that this stupid article would result in lots of work for me, just because some people just can't leave me alone. I constantly have to go back to the painful times in my life and suffer again through it, in which I was abused as certain people like Tilman get a kick out of it to bring that stuff up again.
    • Here is my contradiction:

Barbara Schwarz, neé Bretschneider,

    • Where is the proof that I am a nee Bretschneider?

is a German expatriate

    • Where is the proof that I am a German expatriate?
Barbara, you lived in Germany and now live in the US. By most people's definition of the term, you are an expatriate. Of course, since you claim to have been born in the US, you won't ACCEPT any proof of that sort. 206.114.20.121 22:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

now living in Salt Lake City, Utah. She was the president of the German branch of the Church of Scientology from August 3, 1983 until July 10, 1984. [1]. Schwarz is no longer active in the Church of Scientology (she states that she was "kicked out" in 1984).

      • I wrote I was kicked out by a non-scientological infiltrator, a friend of Tilman Hausherr with name of Brigitta Harrington. She was NO Scientologist. She left Scientology right after she kicked me illegally out. She is an enemy of Scientology. As is it was said, when an Al Queda guy kicks a Jew out of a Synagoge, is that Jew no member of the Jewish religion anymore? I posted over and over that the Church of Scientology asked me several times to come back.

Moreover, what is to make of these many ARS postings that claim that I would work for the Org Special Unit or those that saw me entering the Church of Scientology in Salt Lake? For anybody's info: as soon I have more time, I will be back in the C of S, which only the non-scientologicial infiltrators will not appreciate. So, why is that not in the article? Despite this fact, Barbara still considers herself a Scientologist, if no longer officially a member of the Church.

      • That is not true, and bad grammar. I never resigned and I never was excommunicated, for heavens sake. I am also a lifetime member of the International Association for Scientologists. The number is 12182 038 0003 8519. Check with them and ask them also what they think if the biased Wikipedia article on L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.

Schwarz is also known as the current holder of the record for most requests filed by a single individual under the Freedom of Information Act.

      • Prove that some reporters did not file more.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Schwarz has submitted thousands of FOIA requests to the United States Government

      • You should order the logs of all federal agencies and check how often my name appears on their FOIA logs from 1998 through 2001, the years in which I filed FOIA requests. I bet a Million Dollars with you that just a few hundreds FOIA requests of mine are recorded in those logs. If Wikipedia wants to publish an article about me, their contributors have to make real research and not just allow Scientology haters to put lies on their site.

and followed these up with dozens of lawsuits against thousands of federal employees. Many of these attempt to substantiate her claims that she is the granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the daughter of Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, that she grew up on a secret submarine base on the Great Salt Lake, and that her husband Mark (aka Marty) Rathbun was wrongfully arrested in Madrid, Spain, in 1988 and taken to the United States, where he is secretly being held.

      • I posted over and over that I did not grow up in a secret submarine base but was kidnapped to Germany. Prove that I said I grew up in such a base.
      • As far as my law suits are concerned, they were about that the federal workers conducted no lawful searches to my FOIA requests.

Part 1: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the infiltrated U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301071056.47d7b787%40p... Part 2: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the infiltrated U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301080937.558b97c8%40p... Part 3: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the infiltrated U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301090958.d33750b%40po... Part 4: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the infiltrated U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301100853.7190db4f%40p... Part 6: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301110955.4368523a%40p... [edit] Usenet history Besides her frequent FOIA requests, Schwarz posts regularly to the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

      • Because the anti-Scientologists libeled me before I ever posted there. When I leave they become even worse with lies and forgeries. They are criminals.

Her posts are sometimes defensive of the Church of Scientology,

      • I don't defend the Church of Scientology. I correct the lies about the religion Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Tilman's (who works for German secret service OPC) purpose is to portray me wrongfully as confused or mentally ill person. He doesn't know me, and that is his problem. His secret service has greatest interest in him and others spreading lies about me.

but other times she insists that while the church's "technology" (scripture) works, the current hierarchy of the church is corrupt, due to infiltration.

      • I never said that any hierarchy of the church is/was corrupt, but I indeed made the personal experience that the Scientology organizations are infiltrated by non-Scientologists. The German branch even filed a law suit against Tilman's secret service to make them pull their agents out, which they didn't.

Other posts have recounted her travels during the 1980s and how she was arrested on various occasions, including for illegally entering the White House, and twice confined to a mental health hospital in the U.S. and once in Germany. [2] [3] [4] [5]

      • Arrested for "various occasions"? Tilman just want to make me look bad and cover up that German secret service are not just watching Scientologists illegally but also plotting against them and denying them their human rights. The U.S. Department of State mentions Germany every year in their Human Rights report because of the abuses against Scientology.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/3993e8eaa959e78d?hl=en& http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/arbeitsfelder/af_scientology/

      • The Germans are crazy, they still have their Nazi boots on, allowed Atta and his cell to plot Sept. 11 while they were and still are occupied to spy and plot against harmless Scientologists.
      • I never entered illegally in the White House. I never committed any crime, except having had no food for 14 days and taking nectarines worth five bucks with the intention to pay them back. All cases against me were indeed plotted. Read for yourself what happened to me in my 92 parts series, which is a draft only, but correct in details.
      • Why are the crimes by the German government against me concealed in the article? For the sake of arguments, let say for a moment that I am crazy. But how come the German government who started to constantly pull the rug out from underneath my feet, is not accused of having caused that? Tilman protects his fanatical government. I was lied to by with the German's co-conspiring police that I am needed as witness in Germany. At the border I was told that I was arrested, but they had no charges against me. I saw a judge who denied to me any contact to an attorney despite the German law says everybody arrested has a right to an attorney.

He told me that I am arrested because I tried to intimidate Klaus Karbe, an ex-official in Germany, in a phone conversation to call off an international event to introduce "deprogramming" to Europe. (Deprogramming is the cruel procedure of breaking somebody's belief with all kinds of criminal methods.) Read about the father of deprogramming here: http://www.parishioners.org/false_exp/patrick1.html The German district attorney Juergen Keltsch made the charges up after my arrest, and German police transported me in deliberately too tight handcuffs for at least eight hours in a train through Germany. I was beaten by German police, and when I became upset they lied that I am crazy and stuffed me in a mental institution where I had to sit for eight months because they tried to "deprogram me" from Scientology because they wanted a former President to attack Scientology. The German psychiatrists from hell messed my kidneys up with who knows what was in those injections. My kidneys became hard and painful. Tilman's friend Ingo Heinemann was very much involved in that process, and this fanatical man even wanted to become my "guardian"! I was not allowed to talk to any attorney over many weeks, and the German government plotted behind my back with the judges, and they issued one degree after the other against me without that I had any chance to defend myself against it. What a "fine" country Tilman works for, and I did not just claim that the SEGNPMSS was involved but also the OPC for which Tilman Hausherr and his good friend Ursula Caberta works. The case against me was dismiss years later, I was wrongfully arrested for such a long time. And - two years later, I was kidnapped by three deprogrammers and badly hurt in an attempt to flee. Isn't that an irony? I protested against it, and the government kidnapped me from Copenhagen to penalize me for that, and then I become the victim of what I protested against! Furthermore why is nowhere in the article that a Police Officer and a U.S. Marshall broke my arm twice without provocation, during these "arrests" in Washington, that they took my $ 2000, threw me in the streets at night, etc? And when I protested that, they lied that I am crazy and need to see a psych. What a rotten world it is and what a lousy article that Wikipedia article about me is. Everything but how it really was. If Wikipedia wants to write an article about me then write a true one, and not a German OPC organized and approved article that sweeps all their organized crimes against me under the carpet. 

 Barbara Schwarz
  • Shovel the article, is my vote. I am Barbara Schwarz. Wikipedia

is a piece of junk. I can't force anybody here to write a truthful and factual article about me, but I certainly can spread the word that Wikipedia allows gangs as Alt.Religion.Scientology (ARS)to defame and libel and portray people in false light on their website, people who delete any neutral and correct data, and I am tired to waste my time on this Mickey Mouse encyclopedia, founded by pornographer Jimbo Wales. Who believes the articles on Wikipedia has a major IQ problem. First of all, Wikipedia board and administrators should study the laws before they allow discrimination and libel on the Wikipedia webpage. When a local paper writes about a person, when that person posts on Usenet that does not make her to a public figure. You should clear the legal definition of it before. I am no public figure per legal definition. Tilman Hausherr, who wrote most of that article and controls it like a lunatic, is an enemy of the USA, wants to hurt the American tourism and wants to blame it on Scientology. He posted at least 24.000 hate messages on Usenet. He deletes any truthful information about himself and is supported by ARS gang members and dishonest Wikipedia administrators. Yes, I am a Scientologist and not Scientology threw me out, but one of Tilman's and the other extremists' friend, Birgitta Harrington a non-scientological infiltrator. You need to be "SP declared" in order to be not more considered a Scientologist. But lets say, all of Scientology would be in the hand of Tilman and the secret service he works for, and they would indeed lie that I am no Scientologist anymore: I still would be one per definition of L. Ron Hubbard who stated that a Scientologist is one who applies the technology of Scientology. Tilman, like the others, claims to be an expert on Scientology, and posted approx. 24000 hate articles against it on the net, but he and his friends are absolutely clueless. They are responsible for having written the L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology section, and that one sucks too. It is full of lies and false information. "Fine" encyclopedia is is! Also in this vote section, ARS anti-religious extremists lie and accuse me of what they are doing. I referred often to this website, which is on the net since several years and never was sued by this gang as the data provided is not false. http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/index.html See also how many documents are on that site, but as soon somebody provides a link to the documents on that site, the entry is overwritten. "Fine" neutrality it is. I don't libel anybody, I hate defamation and lies. I never wanted to post on Usenet, but I was defamed even before I posted. One day I had enough and just wanted to keep the records straight. The result: I was even more defamed and had not much other choice then to stay present and correct the lies about me. Most people who post here did not even read what I posted in the talk page. Their postings reveal that they are completely clueless. How can they make an informed decision when they are so biased that they don't even want to know the facts? I don't repeat what I wrote already in the talk page. Wikipedia and the gangs who post here are wasting my time and I will hold not just the individual posters but also Wikipedia legally responsible for webbing an article about me that portrays me wrongfully. Some of the information provided below is Garry Lynn Scarff. He is a forger and death threat maker, and you just have to google his name to find the details on him. He filed false complaints. I never. Google also William Charles Barwell to find what lying bastard he is. The there is the Desertphile poster, who is Dave Rice, who described himself as Prozac filled gay terrorist psycho, took GPS readings of Scientology orgs and called them target data. He suggested in a posting to kill members of the FBI and he and his brother put a plan on the web in which they revealed that they want to "deprogram" Scientologists by applying sexual abuse. His kook bother Frederic is the lunatic who put the "kook award" crap on the page. These are the few intoxicated kooks who voted (several times) to "award" me, but Wikipedia doesn't get it and degrades it's pages by allowing that kind of garbage in an article. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/54ef1b7f6b03bb0f/f36f44c3060f5731?lnk=st&q=Frederic+rice%2Bdeprogramming&rnum=1&hl=en#f36f44c3060f5731 Frederic recently made the text on his plan on his website illegible, because I complained about it. Lily, who goes out of her way to describe me as "unimportant" to the world, is also wrong. E.g., I documented through my FOIA requests and law suits that the U.S. government is infiltrated by non-American forces and conspires against citizens. Wonder what her great accomplishments in saving the world are. I explained that the Tribune article is false. Why do you think reporter Chris Smith did not want to talk to the First Amendment Center reporter about it? Read below. Because he has a bad conscience as his article is full of lies and portrays me and my actions deliberately in a false light. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15428 I posted already about the "credibility" of the Salt Lake Tribune. http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2003/feat_2003-05-08.cfm http://www.slweekly.com//editorial/2004/city_2_2004-10-28.cfm http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=38041 http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3077 http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3036 The state court judges who kicked my case out are corrupt. They ignored all laws on my side. It is a shame that such people sit on the bench. And do you know below statement of Professor Freedman? He is right, and not just federal judges but also state judges apply no or false legal standards as I can say out of my own bitter experience with both kind of courts. Abuses by courts are known to the nonprofit organization "A Matter of Justice" ("AMOJ") and they try to hold judges accountable for their corrupt actions. [email protected] posted following recently on the Internet: "Hofstra Law Professor Monroe Freedman said this recently to a conference of federal judges: 'Frankly, I have had more than enough of judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been filed and argued before the judges. I am talking about judicial opinions that falsify the facts of the cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that falsify the facts of cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that make disingenuous use of omission of material authorities, judicial opinion that cover up things with no publication and no citation-rules.' Afterwards, when Professor Freedman sat down, a judge sitting next to him turning to him and said: 'You don't know half of it.' (Suggesting even more serious implication than the alleged statement by Professor Freedman.) I explained what kind of records I requested from the government and had many of them. I don't owe the government any money. They fabricated $303.30 as they did not want to process FOIA requests. Even the Tribune reporter wrote to me that they are lazy and don't want to work. As many of what I write on Wikipedia is constantly deleted by the anti-religious ARS gang, I will mail this article to the Wikipedia Board, the Information Team, Usenet and several websites. I am sick and tired of criminal people lying about that I do what they do. Barbara Schwarz non-notable, non-encyclopedic 198.93.113.49 14:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep totally notable! Brighterorange 14:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I've never heard of her but there is plenty of google presence and a few Salt Lake newspaper articles on her HoratioVitero 15:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article being used for propaganda, not notable
  • Keep What is "non-encyclopedic", by the way?. 212.101.64.4 15:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It takes more than being a prolific usenet kook to make someone encyclopedic. There are thousands of crazy people posting to usenet and yes some of them are crazy enough to make the local paper every once in while. Doesn't make them notable.--
            • I read a lot about her since the Wikipedia article and I came to the conclusion that she is defamed but no kook. Her life is too complicated. A book needs to be written on her, not a misleading Wikipedia article. Vote: delete article. Signed: a Mormon.
  • Keep I just happened upon her while researching FOIA requests. Utah Court of Appeals ruled against her and evidence presented supports the Wikipedia article, here is a link to the article [10] Barbara is a notable figure in various courts throughout the United States and her contibution should be noted here. --Frankcoop 10:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

198.93.113.49 15:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep She's a celebrity in the FOIA scene. (Read the article in the Salt Lake Tribune [12]). About a deletion, ask youself "cui bono"? Barbara doesn't like the article, like she didn't like the Tribune article, which was also fair.
          • I read what the First Amendment Center (who has noteable judges in its board) wrote about her. The Tribune reporter denied information to the First Amendment Center. That is very odd. The Tribune was in a lot of hot water in Utah. Even the family of the governor protested against their shaby and biased reporting. The Desert News is a much better paper. Signed a Mormon

Another party who would profit from a deletion would be the scientology Organisation - a person like Barbara isn't exactly good PR. Tilman 16:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]

    • If I would be no good PR for Scientology, Tilman would not lie that I am no Scientologist anymore. The entire article portrays me in a false light. I am nothing as he, his friends or the Tribune describes. The Tribune is known for unfair reporting. Some of their reporters sold lies about the Elizabeth Smart family to the National Enquirer for $ 20.000. Go to the talk page of my Wikipedia article and click on the links that I provided. Remember Jayson Blair from the New York Times? He fabricated just as Christopher Smith of the Tribune did. Wikipedia should not entertain articles that show people in a false light. Take it off or put one up that is truthfully. And don't use yellow journalism as your guide. Barbara Schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.152 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 16:44:28 UTC (UTC)
      • Barbara, you wrote yourself several times that you were kicked out of scientology in 1984. You can't have it both ways. Tilman 17:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]
        • I explained it to Tilman before, but he does not want to enlargen his horizont. Only people who are officially excommunicated are no longer people within their religion. If a LDS bishop tells somebody to leave the ward for unruly behavior, that person is not excommunicated and still a Mormon.

Ms. Schwarz wrote that other people than Scientologists infiltrated the church and outed her but that Scientology wants her to come back. I wish she would join LDS, but she indeed is a Scientologist when she seens herself as such and was never excommunicated. Signed a mormon.

  • Keep Very notable in the FOIA scene. Also notable in that she is a major player in the Alt.Relgion.Scientology scene, which is clearly a point of interest given that A.R.S. also has its own entry. She is a curious facet of our modern times, and many, many internet denizens know of her and refer to her, which would cause others to seek her out on Wikipedia. There is no good reason to delete this page; unless you are Scientology, or Barbara Schwarz. Databind() 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as the article is not fair. Tilman wants her to look like a nut when she indeed is highly intelligent. As more you read of her as more you get that she really is just hated because she is speaking up against opponents of Scientology.
  • Keep Schwarz's detailed delusional fantasies are amazing. But her incredible efforts to prove them via massive abuse of the FOIA with numerous govenment agancies and massive numbers of lawsuits, all argued pro se and all lost, sets her far apart from mere net kooks. That alone would make her newsworthy. She is now actively posting in alt.religion.scientology and brought her hyperactivity with her, and became a willing conduit of Scientology misinformation, libel and harassment. Only the Saltlake, Utah library's cutting of hours allowed on a computer there slowed her down.

She shows no signs of slowing down or going away on her own. Only lack of money and large debt to the US government over her FOIA bombings of hundreds of agencies keeps her from continuing her career as the most prolific kook of all time in regards to computerized abuse of the FOIA statutes. This bears watching, as does her penchant for lawsuits, slowed down only because of lack of money.
Wbarwell— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.197.170 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 17:01:03 UTC (UTC)

  • keep The web page in question is 100% factual (according to Ms. Schwarz herself), and I cannot see any non-neutral "bias" in it. I do not see anything objectionable. -- Desertphile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.49 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 17:05:37 UTC (UTC)
  • Keep Her FOIA status and her activity on ARS need references on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.184.200 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 17:04:11 UTC (UTC)
  • Keep Ms Schwarz has made herself notable through her excessive FOIA actions and her extreme record of Internet abuse. Ms Schwarz craves, even demands, notoriety, but only on her own terms and only when the information is provided by such an unimpeachable source such as herself. This article should be retained to document her notoriety and abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.254.34 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 17:16:36 UTC (UTC)
  • delete Several reasons: She is of no importance for the world. She is not a celebrity. She is mainly defamed in that article and that is what bothers me the most. An article like this, where a common person is just ridiculed, defamed and fingerpointed (I tried to reveal the reasons and some background info on the discussion page, please watch out there) is not a good reputation for the encyclopedia of the Internet community. Barbara Schwarz is a very, very common name in german speaking countries. The google-test is not fullfilled. There are already 2 Barbara Schwarz in my city's phone book! - - - Her belief is very important for her, she identifies with it. She is a dedicated and convinced scientologist, but the article does not allow to add this important information about her. The article seems to be written by scientologists, who feel ashamed of a person posing like her, but want to abuse her to check out the possibilities of further abuse of wikipedia to harass, defame and discredit people. The article is neither neutral nor justifiable and of interest only for people, who find freaks entertaining. But since she for herself finds the article not correct, we all should respect that and forget about religion. Maybe she in fact is mentally insane, I do not know. If so - it is worse, what is done to her. I can not support that, although I understand, that she can be really entertaining. - - - Please, community, let us demonstrate, that we are honestly trying our best to respect individuals, no matter of which belief (I am a critic of scientology and she is a scientologist, I would fight with her about that, but I will fight for her dignitiy as a human being as well) and don't we become part of a world, where people are treated like Barbara Schwarz and nobody protests against that, but watches for entertainment. - - - If the article should be kept, I will fight for the addition of the information, that Barbara Schwarz is most of all famous for being a scientologist. - - - I really am concerned about the activities of scientologists on wikipedia and we all know, how dangerous this cult can become for critics or members, who want to leave it. It is authoritarian, manipulative, working with fear and destructive, and uses non civilised methods to hold their's own or suppress criticism. Don't we support that. Let us show them, that society does not allow or defend or support that behaviour, but protects individuals and that human dignity is untouchable. - - - Each of us could be the next being defamed and mocked on wikipedia. Each and every of us. A kind of justification is easily written or done ("kook award", mention in a newspaper article ...). That is IMO the reason, why this article has been written at all. - - - Let us show them, that we do not tolerate that! Thank you. Lily Firered 18:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC) .Lily.[reply]
  • Comment. Please remember to sign your votes with "--~~~~" to help us keep track of who is saying what. Anonymous users may want to register a named account, as anonymous votes typically carry less weight. Thank you. --Alan Au 18:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a notable eccentric and prominent religious figure. However, the sockpuppet limit "has been reached and exceeded".- Translation: If you're a brand spanking new user, and we have no way to tell you apart from all the other brand spanking new users, stop voting. Anonymous votes are often discarded, particularly when there's lots of them that vote the same way.--Scimitar parley 18:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sockpuppets. Kappa 18:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for several reasons. Being a frequent poster to newsgroups does not establish notability in my book. Evidence is that she is known locally in Salt Lake City but not nationally. Third is the presence of socks which is usually a sure sign of a lack of notability. Capitalistroadster 19:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable crazyperson. Virtually everyone who keeps up with Scientology, Usenet, OR the Freedom of Information Act has heard of her. Thatdog 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per that dog. Sdedeo 20:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sock puppets shouldn't count one way or the other, especially since that'll encourage people to make strawman sockpuppets. She's well-known in several virtual communities, and Salt Lake City is a major metropolitan city, larger than several nations; notability in a large city should be worth a lot in its own right.--Prosfilaes 20:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schwarz often makes false and libelous claims about other persons who disagree with her, which she insists are claims of fact. However, Schwarz cannot cite substantiating evidence to verify her claims. Schwarz also is known to file frivolous and false reports to law enforcement about anyone who disagrees with her, in a similar manner to Schwarz's response to a Freedom of Information Act request that Schwarz deemed unsatisfactory (when Schwarz attempted to sue that entire Government department for not finding the evidence she wanted). This entry should be kept on file so that unaware persons are informed as to the nature of the likely credibility of any claims that Schwarz makes as statements of fact.
    • I don't want to go in that Scientology matter. It is not my religion, but I saw that Tilman posted on alt.religion.scientology and called all people to vote here who defame Ms. Schwarz and who lie that she would libel. She is a kind poster who just hits back when she is defamed. She does not make false statements of facts, but such are done on her, even in this Wikipedia article. I saw that she refers to several websites which webbed legal documents about the people who post on alt.religion.scientology. The majority of people who were called to vote her are expressed enemies of Scientology and of her. You would find such enemies also on us Mormons and they would leave no good hair on us. The people on alt.religion.scientology are abusive and blame her on what they do. To me it seems that just about anybody but Ms. Schwarz is crazy here. Ms. Schwarz, if you read this, why do you put up with this? Join the LDS Church and leave alt.religion.scientology behind you. Signed: a Mormon.
  • Delete - if we do an article on every Usenet whackjob, we'll overload the servers for sure --Outlander 21:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a notable eccentric and semi-prominent conspiracy theorist. Hall Monitor 21:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decent google hits, needs rewriting for neutrality --Machtzu 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schwarz is one of the most notable posters to alt.religion.scientology; article is well written and encyclopedic as far as I can determine, and is not in any way scurrilous. As a consequence, I can't possibly see any merit in deleting it. --NicholasTurnbull 00:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for having made the rounds enough in barely enough spaces. Alf 01:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE The article on Barbara Schwarz is just harassment of her. If you could see "tilman" on alt.religion.scientology parading around about this article, you would agree he and some others have ganged up on Barbara and are using Wiki as a way to harass her. Don't allow Wiki to become a libel and defamation machine like Usenet has become. Please delete the article on Barbara Schwarz
  • Keep but clean up the article. Barbara Schwarz is our nation's preeminent FOIA abuser, and has made herself a willing tool of the Scientology cult's campaign to harass and libel its critics. A summary of her history and beliefs is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. But leave out the 'Kook of the Month" nonsense; that's just namecalling. And if she still considers herself a practicing Scientologist, the article should acknowledge that. Touretzky 02:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SHOVEL THE ARTICLE SOME MORE

Shovel the article some more. Dave Touretzky wrongfully claimed that I abused the FOIA system. He has no clue what my cases are about because he is so busy attacking and persecuting Scientology, study technology and drug rehabilitation. I requested from federal agencies records pertaining to myself, Marty Rathbun or Mark de Rothschild, L. Ron Hubbard, Church of Scientology or former President Dwight David Eisenhower. I requested searches in specific offices and records systems. Some agencies found records, some mailed me some with redacted information, some wrote they would have none, but rarely any agency provided sufficient information as to what kind of search they conducted or in what time period they searched. They also often misspelled names, which is odd, because when they don't get the names straight, how can they expect me to trust their information? I decided to request under FOIA their search records, the records that they generated during the search to see myself what they did. The Tribune reporter told me that he found that a smart move but he of course did not write that in his crappy article. Here is were the troubles with the feds started. Many agencies mailed me their records, and I saw that rarely anybody conducted adequate searches. I filed administrative appeals, which were not lawfully processed but the appeal authorities rather covered for the lower instances. Then I filed court cases and made the discovery that judges are not impartial but cover up lawless acts of federal workers. The letters that I received from federal employees, the affidavits that they filed are so suspicious, and their activities so un-American that I came to the conclusion that the U.S. government is filled with workers that serve another master than the USA. Read the details here: Part 1: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the infiltrated U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301071056.47d7b787%40p... Part 2: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the infiltrated U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301080937.558b97c8%40p... Part 3: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the infiltrated U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301090958.d33750b%40po... Part 4: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the infiltrated U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301100853.7190db4f%40p... Part 6: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the U.S. government http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301110955.4368523a%40p... Anyway, you should know that I filed a FOIA request to all agencies of the U.S. intelligence community in October 2000 and asked them to pull the files of Osama Bin Laden. And guess what? None of them did. And be reminded that the September 11 Commission came to the conclusion that the Sept. 11 clues were in the governmental files since the late 90s. If the FOIA officers would have done their jobs on my FOIA requests instead of being lazy or corrupt, someone could have raised the alarm as to what Bin Laden's Al Queda was up to. But an infiltrated and not really American government of course turns everything around and defames ME of all people as "FOIA terrorist". It is outrageous! It is as bad as calling Anne Frank a Nazi! And here some more information on Dave Touretzky who usually blames the wrong target. A guy like he of course webs that crabby Tribune article because he loves yellow journalism. Before he webbed that thing he had an awful dirty article about a former Miss, Kathy Johnson on his website. He also is obsessed with bomb instructions on his sites. He claims that the C of S uses me. Didn't Tilman Hausherr claim that I am no Scientologist? Now I am suddenly one again but this time working for the C of S? I don't work for the C of S, but I am a private Scientologist. The reason why I post on ARS is PERSONAL and not on order or request of the C of S. Below is what Dave Touretzky has on his despicable bomb instruction, porn and religious persecutor webpage about me: "Who is Barbara Schwarz (see article), and why is this former president of the Church of Scientology of Germany obsessed with me? Could it be because Scientology hates my Razor article?" There is no obsession on my part with the rat professor. And what is the crap about the Razor article? I find Touretzky's ways wrong, don't like that I received his harassing porn letter, don't like his bomb instructions, and that he goes after my websites and removes them with illegal methods from the net. He is obsessed with denying free speech to me. I don't harass, libel or defame the "critics" of Scientology. I never wrote intentionally any false information about anybody and nobody in the world can force me to do that. Most of the "critics" are fanatics who lie horrendously about L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology and me. I don't like these kind of abusers, so what I post about them is TRUE, and they don't like it. Dave Touretzky doesn't like that I post so I got a harassing porn letter with his name and address on the porn invoice, and it is the truth. I received that letter with the USPS, it still needs to be tested if Dave's DNA is in it but nothing that I posted about him or anybody else was or is untrue. In other words, that Dave Touretzky or others wrote that I libel or harass is libel and harassment of their parts, not of mine. Signed Barbara Schwarz

From: [email protected] (Barbara Schwarz) Newsgroups: misc.education,misc.education.­science,misc.activism.progress­ive,alt.religion.scientology,s­ci.skeptic Subject: Why does a pervert get a federal grant? NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.127.246.149 Message-ID: Since David Touretzky continuously oppresses my free speech by having my website taken down because I have been exposing the truth about his sexual perversions, I have re-typed the invoice that was sent to me. Why is the US government giving grants to this pervert who is using Carnegie Mellon University's phone number to order dildos? I have also asked a friend to post the invoice to an alt.binaries* newsgroup. Below is how the real invoice looks., Note the phone number (412) 268-7561, which goes straight to Touretzky's office (not via his secretary) at Carnegie Mellon University: INVOICE: JT's Page Date Invoice. No. Stockroom 1 12/05/02 125888A All the Best in Sexual Technology 2140 Hyperion Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90027 Phone: (800) 755-8697 or (323) 666-2121 Fax: (800) 357-8697 or (323) 913-59736 BILL TO SHIP TO David Touretzky 800 Nordeen Drive West Mifflin, PA 15122 Customer No. Sales I.D. Reference # Media Code Terms 99154 /CJ / xxxxxxxx4235 DISCOVERER Ordered by Warehouse Phone Number Total Wt. Zone Packages Ship (412) 268-7561 0.3. Lbs 0 1 PPI Message: Happy Holydays from the staff at www.stockroom.com City B/O Shipped Items # Description Unit Price Disc Extension 1 0 1 A810 Hot Rod-Sport, Red 27.000 -- 27.00 1 0 1 B087 Silk, Blue Pearl, Small 10.000 -- 10.00 1 0 1 CAT JT's Stockroom Catalog 0.000 -- 0.00 MERCHANDISE INVOICE TOTAL $ 37.00 SHIPPING & HANDLING $ 8.00 INVOICE TOTAL $ 45.00 CR. CARD: DI.APPR:005069 $ -45.00

­--------------------------

What are the federal employees thinking by awarding such a man who said himself that he is already overpaid and has also bomb instructions on his website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep for the reasons stated above. However I'd add a note when acknowleding her supposed Scientology membershp, that Scientology is "clueless about this person" [13]. That will keep Church of Scientology at bay too. --Mgormez 03:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again you are turning around the facts, Mike Gormez. Scientology is of course not clueless about her. She was the general manager of that cult in Germany. And the cult-PR wants to make us believe, that they have no clue about her? The truth is, that scientology pretends to be clueless about her. Barbara Schwarz is a scientologist. Lily Firered 09:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Brink in the Wall/Lily Firered, Scientologist is a trademark and as such the trademark holder can indentify its products and services, and they don't recognize Barbara Schwarz as one of them. "Scientologist is a collective membership mark designating members of the affiliated churches and missions of Scientology." [14] Mgormez 14:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is that written, Mike Gormez, that Hubbard created a trademark? I mean, where did Hubbard himself state that? Did he once say: "I create a trademark!"? Where, when? If so, then it is not a religion? So the status of being a religion and the name of being a church has to be cancelled very, very quickly, I think. Let us bring this to the tax department's attention. Barbara Schwarz is a scientologist. Lily Firered 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's very vocal with her harassment of Scientology critics, and she's an interesting study in the pro-Scientology anti-Scientology Freezone debate. --Bess 03:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Posted by 221.221.17.141
  • Keep There are more than enough supporting data about Barbara Schwarz from various gov't and state agencies to support the entry here. She has made her claims not only in the court of public opinion (online) but in the United States court systems. Information related to her can be readily foudn with a simple search of her name in various search engines, it is important that Wikipedia keep her entry intact as it will no doubt assist others who inquire about related areas and subjects involving this individual. --Frankcoop 10:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the present article now establishes notability by the second sentence. It needs to be watched by a critical mass for NPOV, but given the subject that is as likely to work out over time as any article on Scientology. Samaritan 08:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy shit! BJAODN that rant, Keep the article. -HX 17:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only for the FOIA reference and her former connection to "official" Scientology. The article needs watching to maintain NPOV (on BOTH sides), of course. - 206.114.20.121 18:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revise substantially. Schwarz is a well known figure in legal circles due to her massive amount of litigation which is barely touched on in the article. This dates from long before her Usenet presence. She gets tons of Google hits and should expect to be in the public eye since she thrust herself into it. Her current doings on Usenet are of much less interest. Phr 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and hold it right there, Phr. I made some research on her. I found out that she only posts because she was defamed on Usenet BEFORE she ever posted. Filing FOIA requests and legal cases does not mean that she thrust herself into the public eye. I found no website in which Barbara Schwarz tried to get attention. She can't be blamed for other people putting her on the web and the press chasing her. She raised a very good point herself. Is she a public figure per legal definition or does she deserve privacy? And as long that is not clear, the defamatory article as to go. Signed: Wikinger.
  • Keep. Notable kook. And, last I checked, I'm not a sock of anyone. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid grounds given for deletion. --Carnildo 21:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guess this guy has a misunderstanding what valids grounds are. Being no public figure, for example IS a valid ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mention that Barbara currently considers herself to be a Scientologist, but she is not a member of the Church of Scientology as she states she was kicked out many years ago. Removing the Usenet Kook reference would probably help better its NPOV. Vivaldi 00:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an Al Queda guy kicks a Jew out of a Jewish synagogue, does that mean that the Jew is not more Jewish? I was not kicked out by a Scientologist but by infiltrators, the same people who write distorted and false articles about me. Moreover, the Church of Scientology asked me several times to come back, and I never resigned from the Church of Scientology. But I am not on staff but a private Scientologist. These Wikipedia contributors are so stupid. -- Barbara Schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)
      • That is why the article clearly states, "Barbara says she is a Scientologist". Ms. Schwarz doesn't attend church services or any other services at the Church of Scientology and she admits she was booted out of the organization. Whoever booted her out apparently had the authority of the Church of Scientology to boot her, so it matters not if Barbara calls them "infiltrators" or "psyche trolls" or "Nazis". The current Co$ doesn't acknowledge her anymore. Vivaldi 01:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vivaldi" is an ID stealer, a forger, harasser and liar. He is either 11 years old or mentally retarded. He forged me and others on websites. He is a criminal. -- Barbara Schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I used the nickname "vivaldi" before most people even heard of the internet. It was one of my first USERIDs (and the id part of my e-mail) on an IBM Mainframe running VM/CMS on BITNET clear back in 1989. This is a non-sensical argument anyway. There is absolutely no confusion between myself and Barbara Schwarz. I am not a forger. Barbara is lying about that. The website she is referring to specifically stated that the Barbara Schwarz being discussed was not the same woman that posted on usenet and lived in Salt Lake. It was a completely different person and Barbara has been told this many times. I am not 11 years old. I'm over 30. Barbara and her stalker friend Patrick Michael Sullivan have "outed" me numerous times as various different people and they continue to harass and telephone these people (who they believe to be me) in real life and harass their aged parents. I'm far from retarded, as I am a Kansas Honor Scholar and I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a major university. This is not the first time that Barbara has libeled me by calling me a criminal. I've asked her numerous times to call my county Sheriff and report my crimes and I gave Ms. Schwarz his phone number to do so. I also provided her with the phone number for the FBI after she claimed my crimes somehow were under federal jurisdiction. Barbara refuses to call the authorities to report the crimes she says I am committing. Please Ms. Schwarz, if I am committing a crime NOTIFY THE POLICE -- stating it here on Wikipedia isn't a likely method to get me locked up for my supposed crimes. Vivaldi 01:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh, god damn. My stomach hurts so hard right now from laughing. Wow, what a great audience. —RaD Man (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's so funny about fanaticals defaming a person on Wikipedia and what's so funny by violating laws? What's so funny about a bunch of lawless folks who use Wikipedia as an outlet of their lies and persecution? You have a strange sense of humor. -- Barbara Schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non encylopedic, crazy person. Can I put my crazy Uncle Bill in Wikipedia who think we are still at war with Germany? --JPotter 23:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Note to self--- start new wiki: "Crazypedia". Karmafist 14:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self --- start new wiki "Hatepedia" and put Karma and his friends in.
        • Your uncle Bill seems a lot smarter than you are, Jason Potter. Germany does not more use their weapons directly to harm the USA but they use other nations or nationals to attack the USA or/and Israel. My guess is that you were so occupied with lying and defaming others that you missed that Germany companies helped Lybia to build chemical weapon plants, and the company Tilman works for, Siemens, manufactured devices that can be used to detonate nuclear weapons, and I can go on and on.-- Barbara Schwarz
    • Shouldn't conspiracy theorists be admired for their ideas and guts providing some possible explanation for this crazy planet? At leasts they are thinking and not just heckling.

I wonder who has interest in giving conspiracy theorists a bad rap, Mr. Potter? Could it be the conspirators?

  • Keep due to having the most FOIA requests. Block Schwarz herself for legal threats and sockpuppetry under the "A Mormon" tag. Karmafist 14:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, Wikipedia contributors are lawless defamers who misportray me deliberately as they are full of hatred and love just one kind of free speech, their own! If not everybody hates me, it must be me in her little fanatical hate minds. Block lawless hatemongers as Karma. I also wonder where the legal threat by that Mormon is. -- Barbara Schwarz
      • Add the multiple violations of WP:civil she's had as well to my reasons for why she should be blocked. BTW, you can see the legal threats she made on the talk page of the article on her. Karmafist 18:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not Ms. Schwarz, Karmafist, and your claims claiming that I am are false and a violation against the Wikipedia regulations. I don't want to reveal my name as I don't want to be harassed. Many of the people who hate the Scientology groups also hate the LDS church. -- Signed a Mormon
          • Which regulations am I breaking A Mormon? Please let me know, and we can talk about it. Until then, in my eyes all anon IPs are potential sockpuppets regardless of what they say. It's very easy to create an account, they're free and it takes a few seconds -- just click on that link on the top right hand side of the screen. You'll find that people take you more seriously, especially on VfDs. Karmafist 00:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ma'am (in case you are one) you make claims which you can't prove, which is a violation not just against Wikipedia policies but also against laws. It is not mandatory under Wikipedia policies (or the law) to get an account. Sofar, nobody else but you has a problem with posters not using an account. You should ask Wikipedia to change the rules if you suffer under them but not publishing that I am a Scientologist and/or Ms. Schwarz. If I would open an account, I still could be accused of being a "sock puppet". You may be also the sock puppet of somebody. Who are you anyway?

I am Mormon and this here is my beloved church: http://www.lds.org/ I accidentally run in this article about Ms. Schwarz because there is a LOT of noise on Usenet about. I noticed that Mr. Tilman and others overwrite any impartial and correct information on that lady, which I find very unfair. The LDS religion is a minority under the world religions too, Ms. Karma, and I noticed that my church is also defamed in the usegroups that beat up on Ms. Barbara Schwarz. And I also know that the Salt Lake Tribune is no good newspaper. They have a history of scandals.

I noticed on your Userpage that you are having mental problems, Karma, and that is the reason I will not challenge you further, but please don't make false statements anymore. And don't be so suspicious. I think it is not even important on Wikipedia who somebody is but rather what he writes. You can't block another writer for what I write. It is not fair. If you operate that way, you will be one day blocked. Signed a Mormon

  • Obvious Keep. Ms. Schwarz is well-known and well-publicized for FOIA requests. In addition to articles in Salt Lake City newspapers, she has also been mentioned on both MSNBC and FOX News.--Nicodemus75 11:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was mentioned on MSNBC and FOX News? I never heard that. Post the links or references. Who doesn't say you make that up?" Barbara Schwarz


      • FOR LILY

the even harder to handle .Lily Firered. wrote:

> This would be the final version, as Tilman again found something to

> protest.


Tilman is a German secret agent officer. He works for the OPC, he has orders and has to suppress anything his secret service does not like.

> > -------from wikipedia talk page-------

> Barbara Schwarz is now living in Salt Lake City, Utah. She has german

> roots.


I have no German roots.

> Schwarz is a scientologist. She was the president of the German

> branch of the Church of Scientology from August 3, 1983 until July 10,

> 1984. [1].

> > Schwarz is also known for her many requests filed under the Freedom of

> Information Act. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Schwarz has

> submitted thousands of FOIA requests to the United States Government

> and followed these up with dozens of lawsuits against thousands of

> federal employees.


Where is the evidence that I filed thousands of FOIA requests? You have to order the FOIA logs from the U.S. agency from 1998 through 2001 and count their entries. Those are just a few hundreds.


>Many of these attempt to substantiate her claims

> that she is the granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the

> daughter of Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, and that her

> husband Mark (aka Marty) Rathbun was wrongfully arrested in Madrid,

> Spain, in 1988 and taken to the United States, where he is secretly

> being held.

> > Usenet history

> > Besides her frequent FOIA requests, Schwarz posts regularly to the

> Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, where she defends

> scientology passionately and eloquently.

I don't defend, Lily, I correct falsehoods about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.


> She posts sometimes critical

> against the current hierarchy of the church, because she "made the

> personal experience that the Scientology organizations are infiltrated

> by non-Scientologists".[Barbara Schwarz on the discussion (talk-)page

> of her article under "Moved from article"].


>Other posts have recounted


> her travels during the 1980s and how she was in legal trouble on

> various occasions, including for entering the White House, and twice

> confined to a mental health hospital in the U.S. and once in Germany.

> [2] [3] [4] [5] According to Schwarz, these events were the result of a

> conspiracy by a group called the "Still Existing German Nazi

> Psychiatrists Mindcontroller Secret Service" (SEGNPMSS)." [6]


I don't like that there is not in it what these agencies and psychs did to me, e.g. beating me up, breaking my arm twice, taking my money away, and the German crimes, that German District attorney kidnapped me from Copenhagen, made false charges up AFTER I was arrested, that I was beaten up by German police, that I was not allowed to an attorney while the German corrupt government issued one decree after the other against me to which I could not defend myself, that I was never crazy, and when I was, it is the fault of the German government and psychs who treated me as badly as the century Jew. It also needs to me mentioned that I was kidnapped to be deprogrammed later. I posted in the voting section of Wikipedia a long article with those details.

Tilman does not want the crimes of his government and friends in this article as he has to protect them. It is is order as OPC agent.


Barbara Schwarz

> > -------------------------------------

> Yet deletion of the complete article about Barbara Schwarz would still

> be my preferred option. And Tilman please do not interrupt the article.

> If you want to comment please do it in one block at the end. Lily

> Firered 13:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

> > --------end wikipedia talk page-------

> > Could you agree with that?

> .Lily

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 Redirected. Rx StrangeLove 18:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miz Liz Strickland

Was marked for speedy deletion, but it doesn't particularly fit the criteria, so I'm bringing it here. She was a character on King of the Hill, however, as far as I know, she's only appeared in two episodes. No need for an article in any event. Ral315 13:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was keep and move to Bryan Johnson. -- BD2412 talk 05:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Bryan johnson

Hoax Google Search with Bryan Johnson and the exact phase I am not a purely democratic leader turned up Nada Not sure if it qualifies for speedy but still get rid of that nonsense Strong Delete --Aranda56 02:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC) Keep Now its about the NFL Player Not that Nonsense Junk Ty --Aranda56 05:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep ⟳ausa کui × 05:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumvertising

This is an advertisement. Well, actually a hoax that leads to an advertisement 216.35.131.141 14:53, 26 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. Rx StrangeLove 18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Hell

I'm a huge fan of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, but I really don't think Blue Hell is noteworthy enough; The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time's "Beta Quest" would probably be far more noteworthy, but even that doesn't have an article yet. GarrettTalk 04:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin: Note that "Blue Hell" redirects to this page. There may be more redirects out there which would need to be removed... Usrnme h8er 10:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are plenty of game FAQs that cover secrets and glitches. Wikipedia does not need a specific article on a useless glitch in a video game. Wikikevin 00:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic, and I don't think that there is any need for a redirect. --Apyule 06:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Apyule. I'm a pretty big GTA fan, and I didn't know what Blue Hell was before I read this article. Actually, I've read it and I still don't know what Blue Hell is. :P Fernando Rizo T/C 18:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the term "blue hell" has been around for years, and is not just restriced to the GTA series. In some 3D games the game camera can sometimes go through a floor or an exterior wall and reveal a colored void (of the default background color, usually blue). If the player is to travel through the floor or wall (primarily as a result of a glitch), the character can fall into the "blue hell" which either ends up with the player character's death or the game crashes. — Kjammer ⌂ 21:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 18:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Between worlds

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. Rx StrangeLove 18:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ballarat News

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Onerock

nn website - Alexa -100,000, no rating. No historical significance Outlander 13:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SfB

WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of raw information. I'm not quite sure what these codes mean, but the way they're just dumped right in tells me this article is unsalvageable. DS 13:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Several keep votes were folks whose only edits were directly related to this article. There were only 2 valid keep votes and 6 delete votes.Rx StrangeLove 19:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bilston Glen

plus six images.

Hopelessly POV article. This is a road protest group trying to extend their own website into Wikispace. Originally spotted as a copyvio. The page from which it was copied has been deleted and the site's main page now carries a link to the Wiki article ("wiki" on left hand side)! (Creator Rogerz is not above vandalism - see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#September 10 under Bilston Glen - so we need to keep watch.) -- RHaworth 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Extremely POV and unencyclopaedic in style. Whether the road they're protesting about is notable outside the local area I'm not certain, but I think its unlikely. I'm reasonably well versed in significant new transport proposals in the UK, and I wasn't aware of this. Thryduulf 15:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weakly delete keep. I don't know that POV is a good reason for deletion. (granted it would be easier than battling POV warriors - I added the NPOV tag). Not being encyclopedic on the other hand would be. I was going to ask if it got any coverage in the UK, but Thryduulf pretty much answered that; I think the road in question is a bypass spur of the A7 road. If their claim that the protest site has been around for over three years and I'm interpreting right that it has been continuosly occupied, then that seems like an extraordinary example of protest that may deserve mention somewhere else on wikipedia. Whitejay251 16:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Sdedeo, provision of some sources has helped to assuage some of my qualms with this article. I say keep for now, and see what happens both here and in the real world. Whitejay251 20:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless newspaper coverage can be sourced confirming the supposed three-year occupation. Then slap a billion cleanup and NPOV tags on it and hope for the best. Sdedeo 16:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) Now keep; sources have been provided. The article still needs a huge amount of cleanup, however, there are copyvio images all over the place for example. Note that POV problems are never sufficient grounds for deletion. Sdedeo 19:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host --Carnildo 21:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, advocacy, rant. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, nn, rant. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Your wrong to argue that it breaks copyright, It is my interlectual property. The topic does require a page of its own, not just a mention on another. I am posting it as a discussion document, and if anyone wants to do a major edit on it, thats fair enough. It is not that extreme a point of view compared to the Bilston Glen website. Yes it does need some work to make it more encyclopedic in style. Most of the photos are also my interlectual property.

apart from 2 photos which are from the web- traffic.jpeg www.epa.gov/epahome/gallery/newsroom/traffic.jpg the route map (41105284_e6a16a810f_m.jpg) is from this website http://www.spokes.org.uk/oldsite/naag/

heres a newspaper article for Sdedeo http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15922005&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=bilston-woods--the-only-camp-in-the-world-with-an-eco-warrior-so-clean-he-s------called-shiny--name_page.html

I am posting it as a discussion document. I'm sorry, you're in the wrong place. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikisource. -Splashtalk 17:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Hua

From what I can tell, and assuming the English half is an accurate translation of the Chinese half, this is a lullaby. I don't think lullabies are encyclopedic. DS 14:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep... Rx StrangeLove 20:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WS FTP

Advertising. - Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup/Rewrite. WS_FTP is one of the major FTP clients for Windows, I remember using it in the late '90s. I'd say it's as notable as some of the other software products we've got on WP. It reads as an ad now, but with a rewrite it'd be useful info. — ceejayoz ★ 15:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There, I've gotten rid of the (partially false) marketing speak quoted directly off the website and put in a stub. If we're going to delete this version, most of the apps on the list of FTP clients are going to have to go too. — ceejayoz ★ 15:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 20:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Chemical Romance (Their mainstream stuff)

This is just someone's commentary on how he thinks a band has sold out. ErikNY 14:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 20:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loulady

Marked as a speedy due to no assertion of notability. However I think the first paragraph does assert nobility, although I have not checked to see how well known she actually is. The rest of the article is very poor, but I don't think this is quite speediable. Delete. Thryduulf 14:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7, and so tagged. i don't see the mere statement that someone is a model as being a claim of noptabliity, and I don't see any other claim. This reads like a typical vanity/tribute article. If not speedied, delete unless cleaned up and significant additional evidence of notability provided. DES (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I originally added this page as a {{nn-bio}}. Thryduulf moved the page to VfD and then DESiegel readded the nn-bio tag, leaving the VfD tag intact.
To quote the guideline on criteria for speedy deletion
"An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead.". I feel that I correctly listed it under speedy deletion, but since it seems to be disputed by the user who created the page and Thryduulf, the article should remain in VfD, not speedy.
I would, however, like to give the newcomer a chance to move the article to their user namespace before deleting it, and a chance to respond to the message I left on the discussion page. I should note that the user LouLady is new, has not been welcomed yet, and may not be familiar with policies or aware of how and when to use the User namespace. I don't consider having your first article listed as a VfD to be a friendly welcome. --Aluion 17:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 20:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies in Nude

Not notable. UniReb 15:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kodimedia

Non-notable company; does not appear to be publicly traded or otherwise significant; likely promotion; 86 unique Google hits. (Nominated along with Jackson Mahr) Paul 15:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this because the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to judge consensus. Rx StrangeLove 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, the company has an entry on AFD. Even if it is kept, this probably only needs one entry. Rx StrangeLove 21:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Mahr

Non-notable, probably vanity; fewer than 100 unique Google hits; nominated in conjunction with Kodimedia. Paul 15:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teniverse

Delete, self-promotion of an embryonic company. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia documents companies that have already established themselves in some way. FreplySpang (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per FreplySpang. Friday (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I am very new to Wikipedia as a contributor, but certainly not new as a user or researcher of how the Wikipedia solution works. Regarding the comments above, my comment is they are both very short. My first question is - have you thoroughly read the article? If so - please provide your specific comments about how the article violates a policy? What research told you the first statement above is correct? I would point out that Rizo on his page references a "why I'm a deletionist" page. This contains the very insighful observation that "New users need to first believe that their efforts are worthwhile and then that they will not find themselves instantly ridiculed for working on an article." Deletion - before a group even gets started on making an article decent - seems very quick on the draw (again reference Why Deletionist for his correct observation as to what happened with Usegroups - certainly not meritocracy - but those who were most energized dominated). I will also point out - the activities referenced in this article relate to key failings in internet architecture and something that is now happening in both the United States and Sweden. To get a benchmark on this delete recommendation, I have just spent some time checking Swedish companies in Wikipedia to understand why this article needs deleting relative to them. There are certainly many more articles in Wikipedia on very small as well as large Swedish companies. See for example Eniro AB. Eniro has been there as a fragment - I think - for months. Why keep Eniro? Or look at what is probably the largest known Swedish company - L.M. Ericsson. I have watched this article for months. I will admit, it is actually getting better, but it remains loaded with inaccuracies. Why not delete Ericsson when it is not only poorly written, but actually inaccurate? What harm is done by allowing an article sufficient time to evolve? Is 18 hours sufficient time? John Andrews....
  • Delete. Advert for a company formed in 2005. Not notable. TheMadBaron 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, regardless of "sufficient time [for article] to evolve" since I don't think a case can be made for inclusion of a company which is not yet even in operation, except in extraordinary cases. MCB 07:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the main contributor on this article. I made this posting yesterday. Hello,

I am one of the people working with the introduction of this new company. In regard to candidates for deletion notice we have read the wikipedia quidelines and tried to work within that framework.

In particular we had already noted the reference "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs."

This is not a garage company. The (open access) web-site will release in the near future. The article is being written in anticipation of that release. You may have read about Skype recently. The ambitions are in that category. If the article is not sufficiently neutral - please inform?

As we have understood, the guidance on Wikipedia is to lean away from deletion unless a clear violation has occured?

Vita Balode Stockholm, Sweden

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 Rx StrangeLove 22:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Numpad

At present basically a dictdef, I don't see this as likley to expand into a worthwhile article. Delete or merge to an appropriate article, perahps one on computer keyboards. DES (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 22:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marie de Villepin

While by my nown standards the mention in Elle is a calim of notability and so prevents using speedy deeltion under A7, being the daughter of a famous person is not itself notable IMO. Delete unless additional grounds of notability are specified. DES (talk)

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 Not much discussion but there's not much here. Rx StrangeLove 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Stewart, Jr.

Seems non-notable unless additional facts are provided. Not quite a speedy IMO, but delete none the less. DES (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 22:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ainslie Henderson

I think this is only just this side of {{nn-bio}}, so I am bringing it here instead. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orsian

Seems non-notable (2 Google hits for "Orsian NationStates") - Laur 16:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 15:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cocos Crew (brothers)

User:Stevertigo tagged this with a VfD tag but never completed the nom. Doing so now. Keep if verified. JYolkowski // talk 14:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 02:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cocos Crew Fan Club

Cocos Crew Fan Club appears to be kind of a vanity club page. Cocos Crew (brothers) claiming a membership of 1500, and seems a bit less vanity, but not by much. -SV|t 15:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The number of 1500 was initial. member numbers continue to grow every month. Once an Official Public Page is ready, a link will be included. BanditBubbles 07:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0(scribble) 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of traditional Greek place names

This page is simply a list of classical Greek placenames, with demotic and English translations. I see no encyclopedic content here. The names are from all over the world (and since they include America and Oceania, I suspect copyvio from a Greek-English dictionary or gazeteer). This list is admittedly incomplete - and hundreds or thousands of lines could be added to it, and it would still be incomplete. It also massively uses non-compliant special characters. Septentrionalis 17:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Lists. MATIA 07:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment Yes, we should, if they are relevant to the history. Britain is relevant to the history of seafaring Phoenicians as well as Greeks of Massalia and other deep-sea-faring cultures, as well as to the Roman Empire, where the educated elite preferred Greek over Latin by a wide margin. As such, Greek toponyms from Roman times are more than appropriate for what was essentially a Greco-Roman imperial culture. See also List of traditional Arabic place names, where there are old Arabic names even for places in Sicily and Spain. There were even distinctive Arabic names as far north as France that are highly relevant to Arabic-speaking history. As for Norse names, absolutely—an article like that would be just as invaluable as these articles. Norse settlers had a heavy presence in the Danelaw of England's history. - Gilgamesh 07:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's misnamed. Abydos is an Egyptian place name which happens to be listed in Greek. It should be List of place names in traditional Greek.
Abydos is a Greek name, it was a town on the Dardanelles near Troy. The name was borrowed for the Egyptian place, since the Greeks couldn't pronounce Egyptian placenames and gave them Greek names - cf Thebes). Adam 11:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Pronunciations belong in the article about about the place or in a dictionary.
  2. Same goes for Greek spelling, which I would limit to mention in articles on Greek placenames or Wiktionary.
  3. If all that is put in the correct place you're left with a list of towns which are undoubtedly categorized, and a list wouldn't really add anything.
That said. It is useful to have a list that helps in translating Greek placenames into English counterparts which ends up being the use of a dictionary. Transwiki to Wiktionary. - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Actually, there's Abydos, Hellespont on what is now the Dardanelles in Turkey. And, as is noted, this isn't a Greek-to-English dictionary, nor is it the geography of Greece or of Turkey—it's a linguistics article about listing traditional names, and includes modern Greek forms if the tradition still lasts. Look at the locations of these places—they're all over the place, but still figured prominently in the Classical Greek world, the Hellenistic world, the Roman world (where Greek was considered the language of the educated elite), the Byzantine world, the Ottoman world, and the modern world as well. This isn't a dictionary. It's an annotated reference of extreme usefulness to deeper linguistics studies, and not strictly for the typical homemaker, or sixth grader doing his homework. This is solid info. - Gilgamesh 13:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dictionaries aren't really suited to providing this type of subject-based name-to-name mapping. Nandesuka 11:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it to Wiktionary. Leave a soft-redirect in it's place. This is very good content but it is more lexical than encyclopedic. I also agree with Uncle G's argument that Wiktionary has more experienced editors who can help with the multi-language spellings, character sets, pronunciations, etc. This is, after all, the english-language Wikipedia. Wiktionary, however, accepts words from all languages. Rossami (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a list, not an encyclopedia entry. Names of places which have Greek etymology should already have this information in the article itself (in fact, I have added it myself in many places),but I especially object to the link from individual articles to this list. I do find it interesting to have a list of all the names of Greek etymology, though: perhaps this should be a category, "Names with Greek Etymology". The word "traditional" is also inappropriate. As for names with non-Greek etymologies but which are used in Greek, that seems like straight dictionary material. What is Βρετανία (Britain) doing here, for example? Aristotle uses the word, so it belongs in a Greek dictionary, but not in an English encyclopedia. --Macrakis 18:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The point is that Βρετανία is a distinct form in the Greek language, and not simply an adaptation to nor from a Latin form. It has significance to linguistic studies, and there are many other such linguistics list articles around Wikipedia with clear encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary either. If it were a dictionary, it would more resemble a gazetteer of every Greek name for modern places, and yet it doesn't. Notice that many of these places are long since in ruins, and are part of history. Yes, it is nice to put this information in each article, but it is also extremely helpful to a topical study to put these in one place, and placing a category in each relevant article raises its own issues for many an impatient editor who might think "This isn't a Greek place. It isn't in Greece. This category doesn't belong here," or those who are wary of having too many different topical categories stacked into one article, particularly when they don't see the relative significance of adding so much detail of a place's history for what may effectively be a dead culture for a place where it may not seem like a relevant topic to the region's modern inhabitants. This is a linguistics article, and many of the things that make it important and useful as a linguistics article also make it an extraordinarily dry topic. It may be college-level material and not well-suited to most Wikipedia users who just want to find a fact or an encyclopedic snippet, but that doesn't mean such rich topical academic detail doesn't belong here. Wikipedia has many lexicon-style list articles that have long since survived vfd challenges, for the reason that a list makes the material easier to browse. Another bad reason for categories in this case is that it complicates the effort it takes to make a detailed topical study like this. The subject material is somewhere between lexicon and encyclopedia, and should not be ripped from one domain just because it resembles the domain of the other. See how Hawaiian name especially survived a vfd challenge, and see how List of traditional Arabic place names, List of Hebrew names, List of Arabic names, List of Indo-European roots, etc. thrive in Wikipedia's environment. To rid of any of them is inappropriate. - Gilgamesh 07:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment As I said before, I do find much of the content useful. I also find the various dictionaries on my bookshelves useful.... And it's not so awful that this article appear in the Wikipedia -- my vote is really a weak Delete, because you can always ignore the article if you don't find it useful. What I do object to strenuously is the introduction of the link "List of traditional Greek place names" all over the place. That, you can't ignore. And the word "traditional" is being misused here; perhaps what is wanted is "historical"? --Macrakis 23:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—This is not a dictionary-anything. This has nothing to do with a dictionary, and is of great encyclopedic and reference value. It definately DOES NOT belong on Wiktionary, or any other dictionary, unless they specifically desire to include tables. What do you mean "massively uses non-compliant special characters"? When people are naming articles with Unicode characters, there are bigger fish to fry! My browser can display Unicode characters properly long before it and the server can do all the mangling associated with URLs. HTML named or number entities could easily double the size (bytes) of this article. It uses the necessary templates, too! There is no reason this article should be deleted, hands down.—Kbolino 03:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article contains useful information which should be kept; but 'I'm also uncomfortable with putting this link everywhere. Wouldn't it be more sensible to leave the Ancient Greek name on the page without putting the link? Aldux 13:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rubberoid

non-notable neologism. DS 17:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 02:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Святой Коннектий

A deity from an obscure piece of fiction. No evidence of notability - delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 15:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starforce Simming

A non-notable RPG group. (Their site has no Alexa rank.) Vanity, spam - delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0(scribble) 02:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St Anthony's Primary, Dimbulah

Sub-Stub, VERY few Yahoo or Google hits (over half of which point to this stub), no notable alumni or events. No chance to grow into anything more then an yellow pages entry. Also per Schools for Deletion. Delete. Gateman1997 17:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of notability. Jonathunder 01:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A permanent public institution in existence for nearly 40 years. As the first attempt at creating an encyclopedia that is actually properly encyclopedic, Wikipedia can and should have articles on every school in the world. --Centauri 03:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is content-free. --Carnildo 03:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Average Earthman's argument. Cmadler 14:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Unfocused 20:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. no demonstration of non-notability. --Nicodemus75 22:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't you mean no demonstration of notablity? Something doesn't have to demonstrate non-notability but does have to demonstrate notablity. But that's neither here nor there as notability was not the basis of the AfD.Gateman1997 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant exactly what I said. "Something" (as you put it) does NOT have to demonstrate notability. As per Wikipedia Policy at WP:DEL, Lack of Notability is not a listed criteria for deletion, nor is being obscure, nor is being "unimportant". Your AfD does have notability as a basis, as per your statement above: "no notable alumni or events". Non-notability of this school has not been established in any event (even if this were a valid criteria). Also I do not see you replying to other votes which state "no demonstration of notability" as a comment for their "delete" vote that "notability was not the basis of the AfD". --Nicodemus75 05:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re: non-notability, regardless of whether the subject is notable or not, the article should attempt to establish notability, which this does not (unless one considers all schools inherently notable, which is obviously not agreed upon). This might be considered a vanity article, and would be deletable on those grounds (this is obviously my preference). Or one could say it is "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" in which case we could "merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect." If we were to merge and redirect into Dimbulah, consider how little content there is to merge. (Average Earthman noted that there is more info on the school in the Dimbulah article than there is in this stub.) Cmadler 12:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for re-phrasing the entire debate about school articles. I disagree that an article should attempt to establish notability - this is not WP Policy - only your own assertion. Given the high number of schools (even primary schools) that survive the AfD process, it is clear that schools may be many things - however "vanity article" is not one of them. The entire ongoing debate exists because there is a disagreement over the premise that schools are inherently notable, in the first place. Simply restating that you do not think schools merit articles by virtue of being schools, is no more productive than my repeating that "schools are inherently notable" on each and every AfD. The point I was making the above response, was simply that "non-notability" is not a valid criteria for deletion as per WP Policy. Like it or not, that is a fact - your opinion that schools should "attempt to establish notability" notwithstanding.--Nicodemus75 07:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could just as easily say "Delete, and stop creating school articles until consensus is reached." Permitting the addition but not the deletion of school articles would, in effect, be a decision in favor of inclusion, and one which would have the further effect of ending this debate (consensus would never be reached). Cmadler 12:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Vsion. The suggestion that this article has no opportunity to grow beyond a YP entry has already been disproven since it was nominated for deletion. [18] What is the motivation for attempting to remove these from Wikipedia? Why not go on a quest to remove vandalism, correct inaccuracies, or write articles about topics you are interested in? This particular form of deletionism does not seem to be very productive based upon the results Tony Sidaway has been publishing. Just my thoughts. Silensor 17:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please silensor is right just look at how much better this article is already so why not let it keep getting better erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 07:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia content is not and should not be determined based on the arbitrary application of such vague, relative concepts as "importance" or "notability". Keep.--Gene_poole 13:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Mysidia (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful article. --rob 08:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BrainMagnet

Delete. Non-notable design firm. Their website shows no large clients, a Google search with "BrainMagnet" turns up 41 unique hits, and "Brain Magnet" + design gives ~100. Icelight 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from Sept 13th in hopes of better participation. -Splashtalk 17:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle of Campaigns in Cosmos

Delete- Appears to be a vanity page by User:LQY for a work self-published only on the Internet MakeRocketGoNow 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from Sept 13th in hopes of better participation. -Splashtalk 17:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Much words, but no suggestion that anyone has been persuaded. The nominator's condition does not seem to have been met: the article history and diffs [19] don't show that this has been transformed away from an article about the book, or that anything but war and revert has been done with the article. -Splashtalk 17:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: whilst I have deleted the now targetless redirects, I'm not going to unlink the couple of redlinks left behind since the debate is clear (per the nominator, for example) that an article could still be written in future. -Splashtalk 17:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion theory

An article started by the author of a self-published book to promote the book and his alternative science ideas. The book has been reviewed by the Yorkshire Post, but has apparently attracted little or no scientific interest. A few skeptic sites debunk it. The article has proven difficult to maintain as anything other than an ad for the book, because the author insists on reverting to his preferred version.

  • Delete. An article created and maintained solely as an ad for a book. Proviso: per WP:DP:
    • The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted.
  • As nominator I specify that if dab or someone else has managed to turn this into a semblance of an encyclopedia article on the larger subject matter (not just this guy's book), the article should be kept irrespective of other editors' stated opinion. My reason for deletion is solely because it's a massive, pointless, unencyclopedic ad for (and partial rebuttal of) the book. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tony Sidaway. Dlyons493 19:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. The vandalism keeps it from being turned into something useful. Salsb 20:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page until such time as there exists a method to protect pages from anon edits only. It's something that could possibly use it's own page, but there's no hope for it now. (And hasn't been for months.) --Icelight 21:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page. It's only generating vitriol at the moment. Throbblefoot 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, It is a splendid addition to the Category:Pseudoscience collection. But merge with accounts of the "Divergent Matter" theory. Since the concept keeps re-occurring, it is good to have an article about it. But make it an article about the concept, not about this book in particular. If we delete this, we'd also have to delete Time Cube and lots of other pseudoscience article. Vandalism is not a valid reason for VfD! If necessary, keep protected. Get the arbcom to ban the "anon", and then clamp down with range blocks. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vandalism is not sufficent reason to delete this article. However, I don't think this article establishes that this subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 14:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • you must not have come across WP:PAC. Seriously, I realize the theory is worthless, but there are several ISBN'd(?) books about it, with a publishing history of "many" documents, reaching back into the 1930s, so sans all the vandalism, this VfD wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Suppose I vfd'd Heribert Illig? Besides, I found the (unvandalized) article useful, well-informed, and interesting. It shows WP's strength that it manages to feature an independent assessment in the face of such aggressive authors' online activity dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm changing my vote to a very weak keep, but not because of the tired pokemon cliche. If it was McCutcheon himself, I'd still vote delete because I don't see any evidence he's achieved a Time Cube-level of noteriety. But since this does seem to date back to the 1930s, it is somewhat notable beyond McCutcheon alone. This article should beef up the historical context and establish how famous or infamous McCutcheon actually is, however. Gamaliel 21:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I note he does have an ISBN; that's usually good enough for WP. I grant the book is hardly notable; Is it book more notable, or less notable, than, say, Kélen or Brithenig (just web-published) The Burning Times (movie) (random bad documentary film)? That's a matter of taste, I suppose. It wouldn't be a disaster not to have this article, but since people have taken the pain to put it together, I don't see why we should trash it.dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it does get deleted, closing admin needs to make sure it gets protected against re-creation. Also make sure Expansion Theory and anything else linking gets removed and protected. Wikibofh 21:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to have attracted any significant interest. I don't think it's correct to say McCutcheon's theory dates back to the 1930s so much as McCutcheon has latched on to someone back then he can cite. There's no real intellectual history to trace. --Michael Snow 22:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Obviously need more work Fornadan (t) 17:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm deleting my vote to keep this article. There doesn't appear to be room in some people's minds for compromise. Fine. Some insist on twisting my words regarding tolerance for the concept and to allow truth to emerge over time. Fine. Go ahead. Delete it. Hope it makes your life less constipated. If people don’t like messy, ugly processes, they can always opt for benevolent dictatorship...because that’s basically your alternative. --66.69.219.9 16:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one of many non-academic Theories of Everything which got no significant interest. --Pjacobi 14:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-published nonsense (and getting an ISBN means nothing, since it's merely a classification number that the vanity press had lying around), and non-notable nonsense to boot. --Calton | Talk 15:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I really think the above suggestion (by 66.69.219.9) that "expansion theory" should be treated in Wikipedia on a par with quantum mechanics is preposterous. Granted, one can always find people who think those two bodies of thought are on the same level, but it would make a mockery of Wikipedia to treat them as if they are comparable. Also, I think when 66.69.219.9 says the article should be "kept and allowed to evolve over time", and talks about "maintaining a dialogue" about a list of unanswered questions, he is really advocating what the Wikipedia founder euphemistically termed "original research". Wikipedia is not intended to be a forum for lunatic fringe crackpots like Mark McCutcheon to engage in "dialogues" about their crackpot beliefs. I'm afraid if the article is kept, this is what it will become (at best), to the detriment of Wikipedia.
Having said that, I agree with those who've said that the general subject (expansion as the cause of gravity) could make a useful article, because it's a very old and well-known (albeit silly) idea, and there are interesting and factual things that could be said about it. Unfortunately there are no reputable references for these statements (as far as I know), so it would just have to be written by some non-crackpots... but then we immediately get into the business of deciding who is and who is not a crackpot. This is why the Wikipedia founder (wisely, in my opinion) said that the only feasible way of protecting against physics crackpots is to insist that material not be allowed in Wikipedia until/unless it has been published in a reputable source. If there's any other answer to the problem of crackpots, I'd like to hear what it is. 63.24.49.67 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The former version was a promotion of crackpottery. The new one effectively states that the theory's has no notability or significance. Either way, delete. - Mike Rosoft 06:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm having an article on the general subject and deleting articles that are problematic is not a good way to resolve the problems they pose. As far as "crackpot theories" go, I think we should cover them all, no matter how narrowly supported they are. They can be presented in a neutral way and verified and that is all we should require in my view. There's a proscientist bias in Wikipedia that doesn't really do it any credit. This is a book about the whole world and every way of looking at it, not just an encyclopaedia of science as endorsed by the establishment. This might not be science -- actually, I'd agree it certainly isn't -- but where does it say that only real science can be included? I urge the delete voters to put aside their scientific selves, don a more human outlook and reconsider on the grounds that if the article says "no one thinks this is science", no harm is done by including it as a curiosity. Grace Note 01:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think people voicing their opinions here might find the following statement of Wikipedia policy useful. This is from the Wikipedia policy page on "No Original Research":
Origin of this policy - Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows:
The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide." (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).
...if you're unable to find anyone to publish it, or if you can only secure publication in a news outlet that does not have a good reputation, then the material has no place in Wikipedia, EVEN IF YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE. [my emphasis]
What counts as a reputable publication? Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.
End quotes.

So there really isn't any question (is there?) that this article is not suitable content for Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's own stated policies. Of course, if people want to change the policies, that's fine, but I frankly think the existing policy is the only one that will protect Wikipedia from being over-run with crackpots. Just take a quick look at the edit history of this article for the past month. Then multiply that by a thousand, when crackpots discover that Wikipedia has opened its doors and repudiated what Grace Note calls its pro-scientist bias. Yes, it's true, Wikipedia is biased toward science that has been published in reputable sources... this is an explicit part of its policies. Grace Note says this policy does Wikipedia no credit. I disagree. I think it does Wikipedia great credit, and should be preserved. There's already a web site called Crank.net, that includes more crackpot theories than anyone could possibly want. No need to duplicate that here in Wikipedia, and certainly no need to conflate such nonsense with articles on real science. But that's just my opinion. I guess it all comes down to - what do people want Wikipedia to be? And are we guided by its existing policies, or are we making up new policies? 63.24.123.49 05:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete the current version adequately makes the only point that matters: scientifically, this stuff is utter bosh. However, from the history page it seems clear that if the article is kept, vandalism will continue indefinitely. Someone said that crank theories can make interesting articles, if not exactly edifying ones :-/ They can, but it is probably best to wait until the author has passed on, so that we don't see the kind of edit war we see in the history of this page. I think this is basically the same point that Jimbo Wales was making: in a perfect world, everything would be grist to our mill, but some articles are just to hard to keep NPOV, because of recurrent vandalism.---CH (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_13&oldid=23175867"