Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 16 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DavidsCrusader (talk | contribs) at 12:00, 16 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:00, 16 August 2005 by DavidsCrusader (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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



2005-08-16


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 03:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Paedoracism


Delete appears to be a neologism, although I can imagine the concept may exist. I get no Googles for either spelling, so it is at best unverifiable, and might be original research. -Splash 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete.  I got an edit conflict trying to put the vfd header on this article.  I get zero Google hits for either spelling and only one Yahoo! search hit for Paedoracism.  (and the site it comes up on is a pretty disgusting blog) Zoe 00:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Delete. Neologism for sure. Like Zoe, I do not recommend clicking on that Yahoo! result. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete.  This is the site (Take my word for it, nothing worth reading).  Only thing I found on the net relating to it though, which makes it a neologism with a website.  →ubεr nεmo→  00:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • KeepGoogle hits  , Others:   unsigned comment by 62.255.64.6. -Splash 00:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



    • This just shows the word being mentioned in passing in two obscure websites.  It needs much more than this for notability to be proved.  →ubεr nεmo→  01:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)



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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



A. F. Gotch


WP not a memorial - he wrote a book with an real ISBN that in itself is not notable --Doc (?) 00:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete, writing a non-notable book does not make you notable. Amazon sales rank is about 777,000th. -Splash 00:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • I'm still not persuaded about this guy. He's a minor academic who's written a book or two, at least one of which got pasted. He's significantly less notable that your average professor, and fails WP:PROF — it's entirely run of the mill for junior, middling and senior academics to write books. This doesn't make the notable above the average in their profession, though. -Splash 19:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • To be entirely fair, it should be pointed out that he actually published (at least, but probably no more than) four books (another one is an omnibus reprint of three earlier ones in one volume). One of them (Mammals: Their Latin names explained, 1979) was given a pretty devastating review by Bryan P. Glass in The Quarterly Review of Biology 1980, p. 85. He summarizes it as a "virtually useless book". Delete.  Uppland 04:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete, we can't keep everyone who has ever written a nn book or four. the wub  "?/!" 07:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete, but I'm seeing double standards on academics here. Dead ones seem more deletable than live ones, especially if they died before google started indexing their homepages. --zippedmartin 13:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • According to the article he was "a retired teacher of physical education, anatomy and biology". He presumably had some academic education, but I see no evidence that he was actually a scientist. His books on Latin names of animals (three of the four books I could find) seem to have been rather unsystematic collections of curiosities, at least if the other ones were similar to the one I found a review for. There are certainly amateur scientists who have done important things, but Gotch does not seem to be one of them. Uppland 14:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



Note my vote is a delete, I basically agree with you. I just can't but think if he was alive and publishing today he'd have got enough google hits and flashy looking amazon pages to be keeps across the board. --zippedmartin 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete. I don't consider amateur scientists who write books that don't sell well notable.--Scimitar  14:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete. Per above. -(unsigned 14:01, 16 August 2005 by User:Dottoreso)
    • 

  • Keep Why on earth would we delete an author who has published works? I could see arguing that he's not very well known, and thus links to his page should be constrained, but there's no need to delete at all. PS: I wikified, added a second book and added stub tag. -Harmil 11:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)



'Suppose it comes down to 'notability'. I've published a book, its got a real ISBN, and it is listed on Amazon (thus verifiable), admittedly, it has sold only a few hundred copies, mainly to specialist libraries, and has been cited about twice in other works. But can I get my own article, and can my book get another? --Doc (?) 11:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! Why would we not list a published author? Shouldn't Misplaced Pages at least have a chance of listing those people whose books are at the Library of Congress? Doc, give me the ISBN and I'll write your article myself!


The part that really kills me is that the Digimon fancruft of the week is kept, but a published author and teacher is not. Sometimes I wonder why I even contribute... -Harmil 11:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That's because the Digimon fancruft is far more vocally supported than actual educational concepts.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 03:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Living Edge


Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. If someone finds any albums by this group, then write... feydey 00:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 03:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Gorgi mcTach


Delete, either unverifable or made-up. I can't conjure anything relevant from Google using either his full name, alternative spellings of Gorgi or just his surname. Could be  wrong, though, but the bit about being drunk in Ireland doesn't instill me with confidence. -Splash 00:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 03:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Secret Syde


Delete a band that only ever made one album and don't have any other apparent claim to WP:MUSIC, which asks for at least 2 albums. There's a lot of fluff in the article, but that doesn't change much. I only get 70 useful Googles, too and I would have supposed the frenzy about reforming recently would have helped them to Google. -Splash 00:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 03:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Down the Street


Delete, an individual nightclub is not notable. This name is impossible to Google for, so I cannot find any claim to fame, even if it was very large. -Splash 00:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 03:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



AMDAANA


A copy of the constitution (of a Dental Alumini Association) is not, I think, encyclopedic. --Doc (?) 00:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Transwiki to Wikisource.  →ubεr nεmo→  00:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Copyvio, according to the mark at the bottom. But it says "for non-commercial use only" — is my understanding that this is no longer good enough for WP correct? I haven't tagged it as I am unsure but someone should if they are. -Splash 00:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)





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


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 Extreme Keep. Redwolf24 03:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Marcel Hossa


Delete. This appears to be a nn hockey player who "isnt polished in the defensive zone". I brought it here since I presume this doesn't fit nn-bio. -Splash 00:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 03:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



APfeL bITs


An internet phenomenon - with about 12 googles doesn't look notable (soory for the all the VfD's - I'm cleaning up in dead-end pages) --Doc (?) 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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 deleted by another admin. Redwolf24 03:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Alexandra ianculescu


Wishing all the best to this ambitious 14 year old speed skater, her Misplaced Pages page will have to wait till she's older. Vanity. Sabine's Sunbird 00:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 03:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Jester west 1227


Delete ad for a nnnightclub on a campus. -Splash 00:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



A Biographical Dictionary of Railway Engineers


Very interesting I'm sure - but nn --Doc (?) 01:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete. Unverifiable, as the ISBN is invalid. Pburka 03:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

    • Vote withdrawn, as the ISBN problem was simply a typo. Pburka 23:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • I am not sure what the policy is on articles on individual books, but I think reference works of potentially wide interest should be allowed, as opposed to most monographs (which can rather be treated with their subject if they are important but not yet classics). The existence and publication details of the book are very easy to verify, c/o the British Library, for instance. A second edition was published in 2003. The ISBN is actually quite valid (for the first edition), but there is something wrong with the Misplaced Pages ISBN search function. Keep. Uppland 05:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC) 0715374893 : £10.00

    • 

  • I included this originally as part of the Misplaced Pages series of entries of biographical dictionaries. I am using it as a reference to biographies I am writing on railway engineers. Keep Apwoolrich 07:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Comment: Maybe it's got to do with conversion to 13 digit ISBN numbers? - Mgm| 08:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Comment: I'd gently question Uppland's logic. Monographs, whilst often not widely read, may have an important impact within a field {e.g. obviosly Origin of Species, and in my own field Quest of the Historical Jesus or Paul and Palestinian Judaism are good examples (I can't believe they just went red!)- but there are plenty of less well known ones). Reference works may be more widely read, but their contents are derivative and their intellectual impact usually negligible (and there are dozens of 'Dictionary of ....' 'encyclopaedia of ...' and 'introduction to...' in every field). Whilst obviously some have cultural impact (e.g. Guinness Book of Records many could have nothing more said about them than 'contains lots of info on the subject - and sold a lot of copies'. My own test for any non-fiction work would be: is it possible to write a paragraph on the 'influence and impact' of this work - if not, list it under 'references' in the relevant article (which is what I think Apwoolrich should do here). --Doc (?) 08:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • I may not have been clear enough. I wrote "important but not yet classics", and was actually thinking of Origin of Species as one of the works definitely belonging to the "classics" category. Normally, even a fairly significant monograph on some smaller topic would not be important enough to be treated as a subject of its own but is better treated in an article on its topic as well as mentioned briefly in an article characterizing its author (if s/he has done enough other things to deserve an article). A reference work such as this could possibly be mentioned in an article on the profession of railway engineering, but it is much more likely to be used around here the way Apwoolrich is apparently using it, as a good reference source for articles on individual engineers. as such I think an article describing the work is useful. In either case, standards for including articles on books seem de facto to be quite inclusive. Just look at Category:Book stubs, and its subcategories, such as Category:Non-fiction book stubs. I occasionally get the impression that it is easier to get an article on a single book pass VfD than an article on a scholar who has published fifteen books ("just another nn college prof - publishing is what they do"). In either case, I think this is more useful than many other books for which we have articles and would like to see a policy discussion before I am willing to vote to delete this particular one. — A reasonable compromise, especially considering the size of this article, may however be to merge this with similar minor and specialized biographical dictionaries in a list in the Biographical dictionary article. Perhaps only the large multi-volume works with a long history (like DNB) need to have articles of their own. Uppland 09:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep--published book with multiple editions and published by a major house. Meelar (talk) 15:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep per Meelar. Kappa 17:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • delete Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 1,431,026 , less notable than 1 million other books --TimPope 17:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • It's a specialised reference book - sales figures would be expected to be low. It's not much of a basis to rule on. (Were it a novel, this'd be a much stronger argument...) Shimgray 02:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Comment Firstly, apologies for the typo on the ISBN. I would be happy, if pushed, for the compromise of Uppland, if the alternative was deletion. In the Encyclopaedia article is a listing of many historical ones, including several specialist titles, which might, I am sure, be argued for VfD on the grounds of non-notability. They are there as an historical record, and, more importantly, as a resource for readers and editors who might otherwise never get to learn of them - and use them in their writing. The internet is very weak indeed on information of this kind, and Misplaced Pages enables a record to be maintained, - hopefully in perpetuity.Apwoolrich 18:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • I'd suggest that if it's used as a reference in a wide range of articles, which I gather from context it is, then it's probably worthwhile keeping - I mean, we think it's notable enough to use as a reputable source! Perhaps it'd be useful to link to it when you reference it on those pages, though? It means you can keep all the bibliographic information centralised; I've expanded it a little from catalogue research to cover both editions. Some notes on scope of the entries would be helpful, and make it a bit more than a simple catalogue entry - how summary is summary? is it good, accurate, well-written? - but I can't add those without reading a copy. Shimgray 02:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (Also, can you check if there are any illus.? Cataloguers tend to notice, but you never know.)

    • 

  • Keep per Meelar. -- DS1953 22:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep - doesn't seem to be any reason not to keep this. Trollderella 01:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep if expandable. Shimmin 13:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep per Shimgray. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Comment I have added a bit more about the contents of the articles. I will see if I can find out about the author and if lucky will add a sentence. Apwoolrich 17:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)








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


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Spodi


Not encyclopedic. brenneman 01:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)









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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 04:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Findology


Advertising, though, surprisingly, the creator didn't bother to link to their page.  Zoe 01:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  Redwolf24 04:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Starfat


Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable, vanity page. Googling for "Captain Starfat" returned 8 results. Celzrro 01:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Proponent


Blatant dictdef.-- malathion  01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)





  • move it to dictionaryDemodike 08:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Wiktionary already has proponent, and had it for 4 months before this copyright violation even existed.  Please check Wiktionary before nominating things to be transwikied there. Uncle G 15:51:46, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

      • how do you know this is a copyvio? Is it a copy from a dictionary? What dictionary? Is this considered a copyvio too? If yes, then why they have no legal problems for caching copyrighted documents, and wikipedia has? Demodike 10:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

        • We know that it is a copyvio from the discussion immediately above. As for your final question, please read the prominent bold notice that is below the text entry field on every edit page, and our copyright policy.  Misplaced Pages is not a "cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents".  Misplaced Pages is a free encyclopaedia. Uncle G 16:33:19, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
          • 

        • Objection: We do not infact know that it is a copyright violation. In fact, since definitions can not be copyrighted, it can not be a copyright violation and every dictionary seems to have the exact definition in question. Futhermore many articles are listed on Misplaced Pages, that are in fact copyrighted, including quotes from magazines and the results of various studies, but they are not presented in such a way as to take credit for the studies and sources are typically given. I would argue since the dictionary is given as a source and no one took credit for the definition, it is impossible for it to be a copyright violation. --Lucavix 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

          • I have read Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_is_not carefully. It is NOT mentioned there that Misplaced Pages is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. I think you are not authorized to tell what wikipedia is not, only  "Wikipedia_is_not" official policy is.  So either "Misplaced Pages is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents, like search engines are." quote must be added to the official policy, or otherwise wikipedia may be consider by some wikipedians, among other things, also as a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. Of course cached copyrighted documents must be locked with the help of an admin, to protect the copyright and prevent changes to the document, similar to what all internet search engines are doing to their cached copyright documents (search engines readers are not allowed to edit cached copyrighted document). On the other hand, discussion on a cached copyrighted document must be allowed. Cached copyrighted documents may be considered encyclopaedic too, so they also have a place to a free encyclopaedia. Am I wrong somewhere? Demodike 17:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

            • I refer you a second time to our official copyright policy, adding that our copyright stance is a foundation issue (unlike WP:WIN, which only applies to Misplaced Pages alone) and non-negotiable. Uncle G 18:51:45, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
              • 

            • Provide evidence that a definition can be copyrighted. --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

              • Misplaced Pages seems to be a free encyclopedia, NOT an encyclopedia enslaved to GFDL license. Thats why other licenses are also allowed here, although, most of the times, not in the main articles space but in users' pages. The existence of many other licenses in many wikipedians users pages is against the GFDL foundation issue argument of yours, which is also supposed to apply to Wikimedia projects in general and not to wikipedia encyclopedia specifically. Misplaced Pages, having many different types of licenses in many user pages, seems to be an exception of the GFDL foundation issue. For example, have a look at the homepage of a wikipedia administrator which agrees with  Dual Licensing instead of having a single GFDL. As you can see, the userpages of wikipedians are already free from the GFDL slavery. One step beyond, lets free article space from GFDL dictatorship too, and let cached copyrighted documents to reside (for legal reasons only as protected ones) in the main article space, along with the rest GFDL licensed articles. And as long as wikipedia does not comply accurately to the foundation issues, give to the encyclopedic articles having any other license the chance to become wikipedian articles.
                • 

              • And here is another argument showing that wikipedia does not comply to the foundation issues. According to the third foundation issue, "The wiki process is the final authority on article content". If wiki process is the final authority on article content then why locking or protecting pages is allowed here?
                • 

              • Could you also please tell us what is the exact copyright violation here? You accuse that there is a copyvio here, without pointing to the exact copyrighted document! If it is a dictionary copyvio, please tell us its name and its ISBN number. Accusing a text of beeing copyvio without pointing to the exact copyrighted document, this gives everybody the right and the reason to revert your copyvio accusation.Demodike 19:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

                • from here. and if it's not explicitly CC'd, GFDL'd, or PD'd, it's safe to say that it's not any of those Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

                  • In that case the content of "proponent" article should not be deleted but rather protected and marked as a cached document of an unknown license. It shall stay in this state until someone proposes (in the discussion area of the article) a different content that can be safely considered as non identical to the cached document. Demodike 07:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

                  • 

                • Objection: No one actually owns the definition of a word, and all kinds of use the exact same definitions. Also providing a factual definition is not a violation of a copyright but a reporting of the facts as they stand --Lucavix 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

                  • 

                • Erm, Hosterweis, that exact same definition is also in the webster and the msn dictionary, did they commit all commit copyright violations against eachother. Well, I would say No because Definitions can NOT be copyrighted.--Lucavix 23:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)




I would had liked to contribute to the artice, giving examples of proponents of various things, but since someone suggested a copyright violation even though the definitions of words can not be copyrighted, it seems I can not. Oh, and to that special someone, MSN, Google, and Dictionary.com all share the same definition. Gee, are they all committing copyright violations against eachother? Can you even provide evidence that a definition can be copyrighted? Since the US Supreme Court and the patient office both seem to dismiss attempts to copyright any definitions (typically by corporations like Microsoft) I highly doubt it. --Lucavix 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)



You can still contribute to the article. I think the problem is not article's title, but article's content. Someone accused the content of beeing copyvio, and we are trying to find out whether the text contained inside the article is copyrighted or not. On the other hand "proponent" may be considered to be a word and not an article. If it is a word then according to policy (wikipedia is not a dictionary) both the content and the article title should be moved to wiki dictionary. Of course some names can be both articles and dictionary words. For example, have a look at the words apple or Beautiful or Supporter which can be found both here, and to wikidictionary. Demodike 06:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)



Actually, Google just pulls dictionary information by spidering and caching pages (which is why many times Misplaced Pages articles are found using the define: operator). And also, if the dictionary from which the content was stolen borrowed was made by a private corporation, and its contents not explicity licensed under Creative Commons, the GNU FDL, or put into the public domain, it is grounds for a {{copyvio}}}. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that all internet search engines that pull (and show) information by spidering and caching pages are illegal and guilty for copyright violations?  If this is the case, then why they are still operational? Demodike 06:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you'd look at the message I was responding to, you'd see that I'm backing up Google. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for answering to my first question. Could you please answer to my second question too? Supposing that all internet search engines that pull (and show) information by spidering and caching pages are illegal and guilty for copyright violations, then why they are still operational? And I have another question now. Internet search engines are caching for at least 10 years billion of billions of pages, and, as far as I know, they have not yet any serious legal problem. Do you think that wikipedia will be in danger if (and supposing that the content of "proponent" article is really a copyvio) we decide to keep, cache and protect the page instead of deleting it?Demodike 06:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages has quite a stricter copyright policy than most search engines, pretty much just to be on the safe side. And actually, many search engines (read: Google) have been slapped around a bit with C&Ds, not only for copyright stuff (and the DMCA), but for other things such as providing a medium for such content to spread. Here's some examples:



There. can we please delete this article now? It's not as if it was even particularly good, anyway. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)



I have a minor question, what does someone vote if they do not want it deleted? I would also like to note that a few of the votes to delete gave reasons which have been debunked (such as the transwiki argument). --Lucavix 00:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)



They would vote keep. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete. Dictionary definition. Proponent seems to be a particular term in environmental policy. See the article temp page for a stub. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 04:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


Why not revert instead of delete? You want to delete it because you think that the text is a copyvio? And why you want to delete from wikipedia copyrighted documents that can be found on internet ? Do you believe that its better for copyrighted documents (that can be found on internet) to be deleted rather than preserved in history as cached documents? Let me remind you that all internet search engines are caching and showing copyrighted documents (that can be found on internet) without having any serious legal problems. Why wikipedia community cannot do the same? Demodike 09:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)



Objection: Is there issue here rather or not the definition is copyrighted (and since the definition of a word can not be copyrighted in the United States I highly doubt that it is) or rather or not it violates the "Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary" policy? Futhermore, why can a dictionary definition not be given as the basic introduction to an article that may well be expanded? Unfortunately rather or not I can make any contributions hinges on rather or not this article is deleted, were the article left alone it may have well expanded to far more than just a definition (If I had my way for example). --Lucavix 12:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)



Sounds reasonable. It is a nice idea a dictionary definition to be given as the basic introduction to an article that may well be expanded. I have read many other articles which refer to the meaning and etymology of the article title, so why not this one too? But let me object that we should also move the current text to wikidictionary. as long as the current definition in wikidictionary is deficient. Demodike 13:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)








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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



The Star City Times-Entertainment


I don't know if this is a hoax, but I found nothing on google, nor do I know any in the state/county/nation of TAR. I guess they could mean Star City, Arkansas, which perhaps no longer qualifies as a city. Unless they mean the paper is defunct, not the city, in which case this article is too subliterate (as well as unverified) for inclusion. -R. fiend 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Hyung-Dae Shin


Appears to be non-notable; Google results for "Hyung-Dae Shin" are few in number, and all are either from WP or a site using its content.  Delete. Joel7687 01:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



David Nelson (Democrat)


Non-notable person --BaronLarf 02:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete. He has worked with many notable people, but doesn't meet the standard himself. Also, I never thought I'd see an article with too many wikilinks. It's almost unreadable. Pburka 03:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Hmm. This is clearly a vanity page. Equally clearly, this person is not well-known, and would ordinarily not be viewed as a person of sufficient significance or importance to merit mention in an encyclopedia. The greatest claim to fame appears to be in regards his political activities: eg. he's a member of the Democratic party, a delegate to various DNC conventions, etc. Most of the page lists his membership of organizations such as the NRA and various gay committees and groups. There is a curious section entitled "Politcal ancestry;" like everything else in the article it is unverified. There are two references, both books; it is unclear how relevant these are as source material for the subject (one is on the Sundance Film festival, the other a history of Salt Lake county). Problems: massive. This is an account of a largely unknown individual, which seems to stress his society memberships. The notability of any of it is difficult to see. All of the statements are unreferenced and most of the statements will be practically impossible to verify reliably without a great deal of primary research by Misplaced Pages editors. It is highly unlikely that the User is the subject of genuine research or reputable study/reporting. The autobiographical nature of the article gives rise to concerns of balance. All this results in a severe NPOV problem. I think this should be deleted. WP:VAIN, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE. —Encephalon |   04:10:42, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
    • 

  • Speedy delete. Never mind that I was a professional writer for some years and that I structured this article to resemble other existing Misplaced Pages:Biographies and Misplaced Pages:Autobiographies, I consider this article now to be copyrighted by me and not public domain. It can't be used by Misplaced Pages. Look for it elsewhere. Misplaced Pages just isn't worth it. --David Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Nelson (talk • contribs) 2005-08-16 05:23:49

    • Comment Mr. Nelson, thank you for your comment. I agree with you that the article was well composed. WP has certain policies in place that are meant to encourage the creation of encyclopedic entries of notable subjects, and as a community we are all bound to uphold them. It is important to note that criteria like "notability" refer only to significance with respect to the encyclopedia, and not the enormous importance and significance all of us have to our own communites and the people around us. While the above autobiographical venture may not be especially suited to WP, a writer of your obvious talent and diligence is bound to be a valuable contributor to the project. I hope you will reconsider and decide to stay. Kind regards—Encephalon |   06:14:02, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
      • 

    • You can't just suddenly decide to seize rights to text submitted under the GFDL.  Nonetheless, delete.  Non-notable.  Neurophyre 06:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

      • With emphasis: I structured this article to resemble others. How exactly is it more NN or VAIN than, say, that of my acquaintance and Wikipedian Pete Ashdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/Pete_Ashdown)? I wrote mine; he wrote his. I described my more than 25 years in local, state and national politics and government; he described his ... months of experience. I'd hoped to include my more than 200 mainstream news media references (not knowing I'd be tarred "vain" in less than a day thereby making editorial additions seem moot and reactionary); he's apparently happy with a few hundred words about his rave dances and what amounts to an unauthorized political advertisement. And on, and on, and on. No, I'm certainly not going to reconsider staying on with the kind of group this is. Your "expert" Wikipedians leave much about writing and editing to be desired. They're seemingly more interested in quick-on-the-draw intellectual one-up-manship. And, Neurophyre, yes, I can, I did. Too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.181.18 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-16 05:23:49

        •  yes, I can. No you can't. I don't see a law degree anywhere in that glorified CV of yours, but so you'd best ask someone who does and can explain copyright law to you. Your sour grapes face-saving notwithstanding, this article is going to be deleted because of non-notability, not because of you. So delete on that basis. --Calton | Talk 09:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

          • I would argue that the context of this article is not even copyrightable.  There are certain minimum standards, and this article is suspect.  Regardless, read this Misplaced Pages:Copyrights#Contributors_rights_and_obligations - When you wrote this article you agreed that the license was irrevocable.  Sorry, you can't revoke it.  Peyna 13:46:28, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
          • 

        • I live a few thousand miles away from Utah but take moderate interest in American politics. Do I know about Pete Ashdown? Yes I do. Notability is hard to define, but I figure that's a good start. I also doubt we could call that page a vanity article, on the grounds that it was written by... someone in New York who is, on the balance of probabilities, not Mr. Ashdown. Shimgray 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete. Vanity article. Peyna 13:46:28, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
    • 

  • Delete, but no hard feelings--simply put, Senate candidates are more notable in an encyclopedic way than are interest group members and political staffers. Best, Meelar (talk) 14:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Delete.  Pointless; vanity page. Dottore So 18:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete - Well structured article, why not use your skills for some notable articles, bear in mind, everything you do write, including your autobiography is release under GNU!  And I don't think Pete Ashdown wrote his own article, unless he is Andrevan a wikipedia admin. - Hahnchen 01:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment - Actually, on further reflection, I'm not sure whether this should be a delete.  This guy is a gay rights activist, and I don't know about you guys, but just because I don't know any of them, doesn't mean they are none notable.  Deleting this may be part of systematic bias, I'm not so sure. - Hahnchen 13:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

      • Hahnchen, that is truly an unsettling thought, isn't it? For a second it made me search myself, to wonder if that could possibly have contributed even an iota to my vote. I'm solid in the conviction that it couldn't, but the thought that people might face systematic bias in this way is always upsetting. My reaction to David's article was pretty straightforward. I thought it illustrated perfectly why writing about oneself is always problematic: if one is very famous and there is an embarrasment of sources available, there is the danger that only those supportive will be used; if one is less famous and there is little or no independent source material, there is a chance biases may not even be detected. The other problem is that people tend to focus on things that are personally important to them when they write about themselves. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but an encyclopedia article is meant to be an unbiased, neutral exploration of many important aspects of the subject — including those important aspects that the subject may not believe are important. I noted the policies I thought this article contravened, and voted accordingly. I do wish to note here, though, that I, and I'm sure all editors who voted here, bear no ill will whatsoever toward Mr. Nelson. Participating in VfD can be very painful, and sometimes we say things factually that we could afford to say more accomodatingly. I'm always trying to find the balance, and I hope I wasn't too badly off here. I addressed only the article and meant no offense to the person, and hope the comments weren't construed as such. Kind regards—Encephalon |   00:51:08, 2005-08-19 (UTC)










Comment. The comments that follow, apparently part of an email exchange between David Nelson and Kat Walsh, were pasted to this VfD by David Nelson at 2005-08-21 00:57:05 



Hello and thank you for your message, Kat.

I wonder if those who wrote the messages that you described as "unkind" and "uncivil" will be treated as I've been by receiving warnings about their unapproved writings, temporary suspension or permanent cancellation of their publishing abilities, or other equitable restrictions for their actions that have violated Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.

If not, why not?

If you agree, as others have, that my submission was "well-written," why delete it? This kind of policy of strict democracy and majority rule seems egalitarian, but, as some of those who voted to delete my submission also wrote, they know little if anything about the topic of gay politics. What other topics are they judging from a position of little or no knowledge? I wonder if the idea of "tyranny of the majority" is a Misplaced Pages topic.

Instead of deleting my submission, why wasn't there any official Misplaced Pages opinion voiced during the voting to consider EDITING? Your policies often and strongly encourage this approach lest the submitter take the path of least resistance and simply leave Misplaced Pages altogether. That's exactly what happened here.

As for the frequent claims that my submission violated the policy against vain and non-notable submissions simply because I wrote it myself, I wonder if all submissions are held to the standard of no autobiographical information. Too bad. I guess the autobiographies of Helen Keller, Benjamin Franklin and Marilyn Manson would be equally substandard for Misplaced Pages. I can point out several topics that would be equally vain and non-notable, but enjoy publication by Misplaced Pages, so it appears that the policy is applied arbitrarily.

Furthermore, would my submission be alright suddenly if I asked a friend to publish it?

Do you see where the policy of strict democracy and majority rule gets us? It's at best clumsy and at worst punitive. Hardly the stuff of "bringing encyclopedic information free to the world."

Finally, I believe that the Bomis ownership and management of Misplaced Pages and its subsidiaries is an uphill battle without the added trouble of appearing to censor information that is published elsewhere. But that's just my advice.

Meanwhile, I'll be working with other online pedias which take a less strident approach of exclusion.

--
David Nelson
Salt Lake City

+++++Original message++++
From: Misplaced Pages information team <info-en@wikimedia.org>
> Dear David Nelson,
>
> Thank you for your mail.
>
> david.nelson22@att.net wrote:
>
> > *Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.
> >
> > You have received the following link from david.nelson22@att.net
> >
> > ********************
> >
> > If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the
> > URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom
> > of this email.
> >
> > Title: Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/David Nelson (Democrat) - Misplaced Pages, the
> > 💕
>
> I'm sorry your Misplaced Pages experience has been a frustrating one.
>
> This discussion on this article will remain open for five days, according to
> our policies, and may remain open slightly longer until an administrator comes
> around to close it, at which time it appears that the article will be deleted.
>
> I'm disappointed to see that you were addressed unkindly here; uncivil
> statements are discouraged but they do appear on occasion; on a public forum
> there will be all kinds of people not all of whom are interested in productive
> discussion. The article was well-written and I'm sorry to hear you don't
> intend to return, and would encourage you to reconsider; however, I do
> unserstand if you don't wish to do so.
>
> Sincerely,
> Kat Walsh
>
> --
> Misplaced Pages - http://en.wikipedia.org










  • David Nelson said:


"Furthermore, would my submission be alright suddenly if I asked a friend to publish it?"


Quite simply, no. David, you seem an intelligent chap, so why can't you see if we let every person who use Misplaced Pages create their own article, there would be madness. Thus we have a in-built "notability" idea (notability is actually not a reason for deletion, but that's not the issue). You already have a talk page on which you can espouse about yourself (User:David Nelson), why need an article too?


Please read this article to get some idea on why your article was put for VfD: WP:VAIN. Oh, I am voting delete. Kel-nage 01:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)








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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Joe babcock


Vanity-- malathion  02:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)









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


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Ëvilphoenix  04:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC) 



D'artagnan


D'Artagnan already exists and the "a" has to be capitalized. The small "a" is never used (I think that the deletion is a little bit better that the redirect because the redirect would make people believe that both forms are possible, which is wrong Poppypetty 02:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Redirect Seems to be that redirecting for misspellings is an okay use of a redirect. Otherwise couldn't someone just make the misspelled version again? A redirect would stop that from happening. Jessamyn 03:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Redirect. Common misspelling. Pburka 03:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Redirect.  I disagree with you, Poppypetty, I think only having both forms bolded in the first sentence of the article would make both appear correct.  The Literate Engineer 03:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Redirect, as some users look for articles in all lowercase letters (and this is what you'd get, since a lowercase first letter will still come out as a capital letter in the article name). -- BD2412  04:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Redirect. Capitalistroadster 04:25, 16 August 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.


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


The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



Hyper-informed


It's by no means a common term, and this article is just a quote anyway. AdamAtlas 02:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Suvorova


Could not find in any search engine, tried Cyrillic letters too. Maybe a hoax? --Irpen 02:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Suvorova Alyonushka
Born Alona Kuprienko, 18th july 1973 in Chernigov, Ukraine.
Star reporter in Hit FM in Kiev, Ukraine, and also in TV programs. Well known all over Ukraine. Currently preparing to live in Spain and work from there.




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 Speedy deleted as nonsense. "James Marcel was the product of an experiment in which a human embryo was planted in the uterus of a horse", indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



James Marcel


Vanity, nonsense--BaronLarf 03:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete Not worth cluttering up VFD for, this meets speedy delete criteria. - Chairboy 03:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Charles Christopher Dundas


I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:20 Z


This seems non-encyclopaedic. An unsuccessful election candidate who is not even currently a PPC. Matthew Platts 22:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete - Many other past failed candidates do not have pages as non notable. Timrollpickering 22:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Spare as the article states, he might become a candidate again soon enough. I bet that the timing of Matthew Platts to suggest the deletion of this article is politically motivated. It has been here months, and the General Election were in May. Why does he react now? Coincidence?--213.243.155.245 22:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Note vote above cast by non-logged in user.
      • 

    • The English Misplaced Pages alone has 673,035 pages at the last count. A lot of VFD pages survive for months on end before people notice them and bring them to attention here. Timrollpickering 22:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

      • 

    • Um. I think you'll find that I've nominated several non-notable Conservatives (eg. Greg Smith (politician), Annesley Abercorn for VfD too. I am a supporter of liberalism generally. But I am a passionate believer in keeping wikipedia from being a political amen corner. Matthew Platts 22:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

      • And why is it that you woke up NOW to delete this particular article? There are tens orperhaps even hundreds of articles about unsuccessful election candidate, but you woke up to suggest the deletion of this particular one just NOW, when the seat where he stood and might stood again was vacated. I know that can't be a coinsidence. You know, that if he will be selected as a candidate, this article could be justifiably recreated even in the case it would now be deleted, thus your motives to suggest that it should be deleted NOW look rather suspicious.

        • If it means that much to you, if he's selected I will personally go out and leaflet for him. But honestly - nobody is going to vote for him because they've seen him on wikipedia. It is of no significance anywhere outside wikipedia. I'm not framing him for murder, I'm nominating him for VfD. Matthew Platts 22:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

          • You would? A promise? The poimt isn't whether somebody will vote for him or not becaus he is in Misplaced Pages, but there is no rational reason to spare this article till now, and delete it NOW when it is topical again. Well, how about these two articles, maybe you aren't willing to delete them because these people don't have the chance to become candidates soon enough; Jody Dunn, Peter Hirst.

    • 

  • Delete. Being a candidate is not notable in itself. David | Talk 22:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    • You must be notable to get listed? I thought that ifan article could interest or benefit people, like in this case voters in Livinston who are searching information about the potential candidates, that would be a reason good enough.

      • Please read our Misplaced Pages:criteria for inclusion of biographies.  People who are searching for knowledge about this person (note that an encyclopaedia contains knowledge, not information) will not find it.  The article contains nothing apart from election result statistics and unsourced speculation that for all we know was simply made up by the anonymous editor writing the article.  All bar one of the external links are autobiographies (in fact the same autobiography), and therefore are as suspect as all autobiographies are.  And the one that isn't an autobiography, but is a biography given by a third-party source, is empty.  There is nothing for an encyclopaedia article about this person to contain. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
    • 

  • Delete. Yes, you have to be notable to get listed, I'm afraid. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information or an election guide. Sorry, friend. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete unless further evidence of notability can be provided. Capitalistroadster 06:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete non-notable non candidate. If he does run in the by-election then he should probably be mentioned in an article on that, as it is bound to attract significant media attention. the wub  "?/!" 10:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep--he has been a candidate in the past, whether or not he will be again. Major party candidates are notable. Meelar (talk) 14:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

    • No, they are not.  The size of the party is irrelevant.  Politicians who have won elections satisfy the Misplaced Pages:criteria for inclusion of biographies.  Politicians who have never won elections have to satisfy those criteria on the grounds of being widely infamous (such as being widely infamous for losing repeatedly and with flair, for example).  This person has neither won an election nor gained any widespread notoriety as a politician.  Delete. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
    • 

  • Delete. Most un-elected politicians aren't notable. If he runs again, mention it in the by-election article.--Scimitar  16:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep, as Meelar says, major party candidates are notable. Kappa 17:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • No they aren't.  See the first and second of the Misplaced Pages:criteria for inclusion of biographies.  A politician has to either be elected or be significantly newsworthy in xyr field.  This person is neither.  Also note that there are no sources of information about this person other than his own autobiography, which is as suspect as all autobiographies are.  The third-party biography, listed last in the external links section, is empty. A Google Search turns up more repetitions of the same autobiography and other people named Charles Dundas. This article has no hope of expansion into being an encyclopaedia article, because there are no reliable third-party sources to use to expand it. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
    • 

  • Delete 3rd place cannon fodder. --TimPope 17:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete.  Rubbish. Dottore So 19:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete, anyone can lose an election, and by definition, most candidates do. -Splash 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete: not notable. CDThieme 20:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep seems genuine, and is not doing any harm. Trollderella 01:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Weak Keep: Harmless.  (Though speculation on future political activity probably doesn't belong.) Peter Grey 15:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete Even if he runs again he'll still be a non-notable PPC. (This goes for all parties). Secretlondon 05:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)








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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Greg Smith (politician)


I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:13 Z


This is non-encyclopaedic. Constituency agents and parliamentary researchers are not notable or even public figures. YBF is of minor importance in itself and Mr. Smith's greatest significance is as a board member of a Conservative Party pressure group. I also suspect (I can't determine this because it's transwikied from wiktionary) that it's autobiographical. Matthew Platts 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Annesley Abercorn


I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:08 Z


Parliamentary researchers are not notable. Being a parliamentary researcher is this person's sole distinctiveness Matthew Platts 22:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Ranil Jayawardena


I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:05 Z


This person's main distinction is being a CF branch chairman. Non-notable. Matthew Platts 22:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Ben Pickering


I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:00 Z


Non-notable. He is a board member of a minor internal pressure group. Matthew Platts 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Jody Dunn


I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:49:52 Z


Strong Delete Keeping this twice failed candidate would set the precedent for all candidates to be entered here. Regardless of the Party, this candidate has no valid status here, unless they are exceptional examples - such as former leaders of Parties or notable national or international figures. The English Wiki would double in size with half-page election addresses if this kind of thing is not stopped. Strong Delete dok 14:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
This does not satisfy the criterion for notability; her primary distinction is as an unsuccessful election candidate Matthew Platts 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Peter Hirst


I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:49:48 Z


This does not satisfy the criterion for notability; his primary distinction is as an unsuccessful candidate Matthew Platts 17:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Nerf Shaman


Not notable.  No redirect required. Delete. brenneman 04:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (video game)


Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. This is an article on a game based on the sixth Harry Potter book; the fourth video game won't even be released until this November. The article consists of three templates and a category – there is no non-template article text. I can understand having an article on an unreleased video game or even on an untitled, unreleased book, but this is too much. Recreate this when there's some definitive details about the game, if it ever gets announced at all. android79 04:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense. – malathion  05:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



Tduff


I was going to speedy delete this, but it does make a lot of claims of notability ... Zoe 04:19, August 16, 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.


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Talisman centre


"The Talisman Centre is a recreation facility in Calgary, Alberta, Canada." Recreation facilities are not notable. Ëvilphoenix  04:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)




  • Keep The lindsay Park Sports complex or Talismen Center as it was renamed (The City of Calgary sold the naming rights for 10 million dollars) is one of Calgary's most noteable attractions and structures. It is more then just a Leisure center. It is on par with the Olympic Oval and one of Canada's and premier swimming and diving facilities. The facility is used for professional and amatuer sports events It is also sorta across the road from the Pengrowth Saddledome and the Stampede Park Race Track Photos of the interior and exterior Exterior --Cloveious 04:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



By the way The camera thing listed on the page is true, it is in the disclaimer policy on the Taliman Centre website Talisman Centre Disclaimer --Cloveious 06:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)




Comment I rewrote the article a little bit, to somthing that we all might find more agreeable.
--Cloveious 21:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Keep, seems like a notable building. It does need to be renamed to the proper capitalization. - SimonP 21:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



The CTU Game


Vanity forumcruft of the worst order.  Forum-goers interested in the TV show "24" reenact the episodes.  Take inspiration from their subject matter and delete within 24 hrs. Lomn | Talk 04:28:35, 2005-08-16 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Trukk not munky and FIRRIB


Nonnotable outside of one forum.  Zoe 04:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)



  • I thought it read "trunk monkey."  A local auto mall bought a series of these deplorable, prefab TV ads featuring some idiotic thing called a trunk monkey.  Open the trunk, out comes a chimp.  Makes me want to buy a car there...not.  Seen the same ads in other markets.  Anyway, delete both as neologisms, nn. - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • There are many forums that utilise this term, many of them are America centric, but are of notation nonetheless.--anon

    • 

  • Delete both as not notable neologism. A few tips - multiple contributions from very new accounts are sometime received in a hostile manner.  However, cited sources that demonstrate notabilty are welcome from any contributor. (And please use ~~~~.) brenneman 05:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • People use this term all the time. I could find over two hundred if I took the time.
    • 

  • "Non-notable outside one forum" is false. These are established terms throughout the whole Transformers fandom. "Non-notable outside one fandom" would be correct. Keep or merge with Transformers (toyline) or Transformers fandom. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete. How often do we have to have these "but we use them on this board with 1000 users" discussions before we speedy them all?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • It's not used on one forum, and not by 1000 people. It's used on Allspark.com, and Tfans.com, as well as hundreds of others.  Both of the two I mentioned have well over 6000 members. comment by 66.73.158.103 (talk • contribs)

    • 

  • Merge with a general Transformers Fandom article.  FIRRIB's most notable use was in an actual issue of the Transformers comics.  TNM, to the best of my knowledge, was used in an issue of Toyfare, but that's the most acclaim it's ever gotten.  I'm only even voting to merge it because it was coined by a friend of mine.  (SUP KILBY?) -HX
    • 

  • Delete.  What junk. Dottore So 19:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete nothing here to keep. -Splash 21:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Merge the latter to Transformers article; never heard of the former.  -Sean Curtin 04:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

    • It dates back to the introduction of Beast Wars. It is a parody of the initial negative reactions of people who thought that only Generation 1 (the "classic" Transformers, with the cars and the planes and things) were real Transformers, and could not bear the thought of the characters transforming to realistic-looking animals. "Trukk not munky" refers to Hasbro's initial portrayal of Optimus Primal as a reincarnation of Optimus Prime, which does not explain how he changed from a trailer truck to a gorilla. The phrase was often seen on alt.toys.transformers, but always in a parodical context. — JIP | Talk 15:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

      • ...Joona? (Seriously, give it up.  Neither of these things are really wikipedia worthy.  If Hasbro THEMSELVES made a reference to it at a BotCon or such, things might be different, but as it stands, nobody gives a rat's ass about ATT anymore.  Not even people in the fanbase.  -HX



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.


Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/The Surface of the Sun



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


The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



Lee-Ann Crooks


BJAODN- A mix between nnbio and vandalism Karmafist 04:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Horizontal Meditation


Unverifiable original research. Andrew pmk 04:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Predicted effects of invading Iraq


The duplicate article Actual effects of invading Iraq, which is actually better written and more up to date, is up for vfd at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Actual effects of invading Iraq. I am going to take the liberty of using Doc's words over there over here because I cannot say them better (except to delete one minor word :) ).  If Doc objects, his comments can be removed or expanded.  --Noitall 04:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)



Before anyone objects, I know cleanup candidates shouldn't be brought here, but I'm being bold. I think this article is beyond cleanup and we should just put it out of its pathetic miserable existence. As it stands, it isn't an assessment of the effects of invasion; it is a POV scorecard on whether the alleged objectives have been met. The subject is covered elsewhere- whatever your view on Iraq, consider whether this article can ever be anything other than the mess it has been up till now --Doc (?) 22:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


"imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" - although I find the censorship of my language a little strange --Doc (?) 21:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



This article is even worse in "predicting" a laundry list of POV items.  There are no sources and no quotes from valid sources.






  • Keep On second thoughts, I'm willing to go with Tony on this. Predictions were made - thus (sourced) predictions can be recorded. My provision is, it should be nuanced - and not look like - 'here is what the 'pro' (all) predicted and here the 'anti' (all) said' --Doc (?) 23:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete Unnecessary.  The relevant points could be (are?) summarized in an intro paragraph in 2003 Iraq War article.  There's no real reason for having such a list other than for supporting revisionist finger pointing at a later date. --Paul 20:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep: Needs cleaning up, not deletion. The 2003 Iraq War polarised views across the planet (including between friends and families).  The article reflects the cross section of views expressed at many dinner tables over the 2003 period.  Time will tell who was right and who was wrong.  Clean up and reword so it reads from a NPOV and/or list more citings of sources --nirvana2013 16:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)



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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Dj grothe


Non-notable vanity.  Created by User:Djgrothe, who had his original vanity page userfied, went to the Help Desk to complain, was told to read WP:BIO and then came back and created this again anyway.  Zoe 05:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete - NN Vanity Page, user should follow guidelines for user pages Digital Thief 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep -- because have followed guidelines at WP:BIO: I write for a magazine that has 30,000 subscribers (the guidelines say the author should write for something over 5,000 subscribers) and I pass what they called the "google test". Agreed that guidelines should be followed, and I think they have been.  Djgrothe 9:10, 16 August 2005

    • With respect to 'passing' the Google test, I get only about 160 useful Googles. -Splash 02:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

      • Re: the "Google test" - with the name DJ Grothe in quotes, Google returns about 559 hits, but can omit similar pages to get 198. Your search for some reason omits some of the media hits. Google is always changing, too.  What's a good number that generally most bios get when passing the google test?  I'm curious. Djgrothe 14:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Delete You certainly do exist, but so do hundreds of millions of other people also show up on google. You get about 198 unique google hits, which comes nowhere near to independantly proving your notability. Both of the articles on your alternative sources of notability were created today either by you (Free Inquiry) or by an anon IP address (Center for Inquiry, currently copyvio) that quite helpfully also added the 30,000 reader claim. However, the 5,000 person guideline is being stretched to it's limits here. Someone with an op-ed piece in a free 'zine that made 5000 copies would have a very hard time convincing anyone they were notable for that. Similarily, I don't think you've done enough to prove that you're notable, and as an admitted vanity piece, you need to really make sure you done that. --Icelight 17:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

    • "The vanity of others offends us only when it offends our own vanity." -- Nietzsche. This is just a followup comment -- I do not think the entry is a vanity piece, unless it is only by definition. Free Inquiry's subscription numbers are 30,000, not 5,000, as is easily discovered by a search.  I agree that one op-ed piece isnt notable, but its a regular contribution and column to that and other magazines (do a google search).  Moreover, the magazine isnt free, it is subscriber based like the Nation and New Republic. And I clearly pass the google test. Its confusing why if the guidelines are followed people would so fluster. If there is really consensus that the entry should be deleted even after my showing that the guidelines at WP:BIO have been followed, I'll delete the posting and consider the Misplaced Pages to be more for officious folks and less in the spirit of important knowledge compilation such as the Encylclopedia of Diderot and d'Alembert. But if you have guidelines, and people follow them, you ought abide by the guidelines. Djgrothe 1:28pm, 16 August 2005
    • 

  • Delete Speedily?  This self-serving vanity rubbish better belongs in a the page author's 'encylclopedia' rather than an encyclopedia. Dottore So 19:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • If no one has the time or motivation to vote to include this entry, I respectfully suggest it just be taken down. I was merely trying to broaden the Misplaced Pages to include an entry that clearly followed the guidelines at at WP:BIO. I think it is a shame that not but one of the votes for deletion, which itself seemed based on a misunderstanding, followed the guideline "All Wikipedians, however, should try not to appear terse, gruff, and abrupt in their VFD postings. All Wikipedians should do their best to treat contributors with respect and good will," as stated in the Guide for Deletion. Again, such tiresome officiousness. Djgrothe 20:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Delete.  Vanity.  Not quite speedy material. --Carnildo 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete vanity. The guidelines are only guidelines, not rules, and the 5000 thing is (imho) a joke. -Splash 21:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • If the guidelines are followed, why get all officious. It is explanatory to see the comments that others have said about these knee-jerk deleters.  Some of them seem to confirm the negative reputation wikipedia has. "This is a work that cannot be completed except by a society of men of letters and skilled workmen, each separately on his own part, but all bound together by their zeal for the best interests of the human race and a feeling of mutual good will." -- Denis Diderot, when writing of the original collaborative Encyclopedia project, which was a crowning achievement of the Enlightenment.   Djgrothe 00:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

      • I am sorry you have taken umbrage, but the point is clear that vanity pages are unacceptable; not only are they usually obnoxious in and of themselves, they further reflect poorly on the encyclopedic project as a whole.  It is understandable that people who make good faith efforts editing and correcting entries will take issue with such clearly unimportant, self-promoting fluff.  Recall Denis Diderot's admonition: fools have been and always will be the majority of mankind Dottore So 02:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

        • I havent taken offense, but have just been puzzled by the sourpuss rejoinders and reasons. And yes, Diderot was the best of examples: an atheist working for the betterment of humankind while at the same time realizing how annoying and unhelpful humanity can be. Djgrothe 02:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • 

      • It is also worth reading WP:AUTO. I can't think of a quote to italicise. -Splash 02:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

        • Thanks for the nudge to read WP:AUTO.  You're right; it was worth reading and helpful and clears up why some people imediately smarted at my submitting the entry.  If vanity is my offense, I should begin arguing that I pride myself on my humility. :) Djgrothe 02:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Dro Itt


Looks like it's just made up. Google yields no relevant results  (which seems to have been taken into account in the article). Mysid (talk) 05:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)









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


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


The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Movieoke



Oops, forgot to add it to the VFD list. --Howcheng 06:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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 Merge. Redwolf24 05:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Slippery Jack


This article is non-encyclopedic nonsense.  There is no context.  The author just banged out a few sentences and left us with a mess to clean up obviously.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)









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


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



ZipRealty, Inc.



Oops, forgot to add entry in VFD list. --Howcheng 06:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete. This is nothing more than a company's publicity page.  I'm surprised it wasn't sent to speedy deletion. -- Ritchy 2 August 2005
    • 

  • Comment: How does one create a legitimate company profile page? I saw that Intuit had done the same thing, so I used the format they used here. Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- 67.111.191.10 3 August 2005

    • Comment: Intuit, Inc. is a much different case, as they have made a significant impact in the business world. The article  also presents a neutral point of view and presents both information and criticism of the company. The ZipRealty article, on the other hand, is nothing more than a brochure. --Howcheng 05:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

      • Comment: Thank you for the feedback. I will update the company description accordingly. As for who determines what a "significant impact" on the world is, are there guidelines for this? Or is this just a subjective judgment on the state of Intuit? I'm sure if you ask each and every company (and their respective founders), if they have had an impact on a certain industry, they will all tell you that they have. Are you using specific measures such as: company revenue, # of employees, or something else? Again, I firmly believe that ZipRealty is changing the real estate world - but that is just my opinion. With respect to Misplaced Pages, I only want to abide by the guidelines setforth. Thanks for the input - this is a learning process for me. Please feel free to let me know if there are any other 'commercial' pieces in the article. I'm open to all suggestions. Thanks. -- 67.111.191.10 5 August 2005.
    • 

  • Delete FOR NOW b/c obviously this article is NPOV.  Quick google test of "ziprealty criticism" brought up some good criticism of the company which, due to NPOV, should be incorporated into the article in good faith.  otherwise, no one will think the article is NOT a brochure. if you do so, i believe people will change their minds since ziprealty does bring in a lot of hits on google.com, though it is not a household name like Intuit yet.  By the way, 67.111.191.10, I took the liberty to condense and tag your comments; in the future, you can sign and timestamp your edits with ~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces. -- Bubbachuck 00:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep.  I think any NASDAQ listed company meets the WP:NOT standard which says "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."  Publicly traded companies file SEC reports and are definitely verifiable.  In terms of notability, listed companies are much more notable than the various big-busted models who are garnering resounding keep votes on today's VfD page or the many fictional characters from movies, games and TV shows that have their own articles. -- DS1953 17:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep. Per DS.  I have removed the self promo stuff so the article conforms with NPOV.  Dottore So 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep after Dottore So's changes. --Howcheng 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep after changes. Trollderella 01:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep no reason to delete. --Apyule 01:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

      • Comment: updated the 13 markets to 14 markets. added a link to the ZipRealty blog. 01:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


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


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Ares (computer game)


Sounds like some kind of fan project. Weak delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Comment - Game is a shareware game from Ambrosia Software, one of the largest Mac-specific game developers still around. I'm ambivalent about the notability of this game (as opposed to Escape Velocity (computer game), which is definitely notable), but it's not a fan project. This article is in dire need of a rewrite by someone who has actually played the game. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Weak Keep as a legitimate game, produced by Ambrosia. Shareware is a bit of a misnomer, as like other Ambrosia games it you didn't even get the fully playable version until you paid. Certainly in need of a cleanup (top online players? not so much). I only played it a little, so I'm not qualified to add much, but it did exist. --Icelight 18:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Weak Keep per Icelight. Nifboy 06:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)








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


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 Redirect. Redwolf24 05:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Hannibal Lecktor


Not substantive enough to warrant a separate article.  Merge at best, if not totally delete.  Bad faith addition by someone who just wants to see their name in lights.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)









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


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Earle Labor


not notable GangofOne









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


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Duboce Park


Advertisement, Non-notable, Non-significant.  Misplaced Pages is not a list of every common area in the world.  Nothing happened there.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)









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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



180 DegreeZ


Non-Notable, See Misplaced Pages Music Guidelines. Rainbowwarrior1977 06:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Keep, or someone else may Merge. The article will stay as is. Redwolf24 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy


Non-encyclopedic article on a retraction made by the journal Science.  The poor opening sentence: "This article concerns problems with a paper, 'Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy")' that appeared in the leading journal Science, treated as a case study in scientific method."  The article certainly presents a good "case study in scientific method," but its not encyclopedic, and studies an incident of marginal notability.




  • Keep This is an interesting article about how the scientific method can ferret out incorrect results and it shows that even Science can publish bad research (that shouldn't come as much of a surpirse to anyone who has tried to repeat the experiments in an "old" Science paper (by old, I mean before supplementary materials were made available electronically).  However, I do not see how it qualifies as scientific misconduct.  Is there an NIH investigation going on? Did Ricaurte intentionally switch vials?  Was he working for a pharma that would benefit from his article? It sounds like shoddy book keeping on the part of Ricaurte's lab and/or the MDMA supplier, but is there an accusation of intentionally falsifying results? Where is the misconduct? srlasky 18:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)







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


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 Unanimous Keep. Redwolf24 22:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Pawel Korzeniowski


Non-notable, sub stub and potentially jinjoistic/nationalistic overly POVRainbowwarrior1977 06:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)









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


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Howabout1  02:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC) Please note, I am not an administrator. I close only keep debates.



Yves P. Pelletier


Definately not notable, not verified, unnaceptable pseudo-english grammar.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 22:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Grogger


Neologism, not informative, not funny either GangofOne 06:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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 nomination withdrawn. Redwolf24 23:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Sensation


Contains neologisms and dubious reinterpretation of information already presented in Sense Manning 06:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC) 



  • Merge and Delete - or else rewrite to match article title - Most of this article simply duplicates information presented in the article Sense, except that it provides non-standard interpretations, which are in many cases, just plain wrong. EG: the "cutaneous" sense - "cutaneous" refers to the skin, not to the sense of touch. The vestibule is a bony cavity and not a sense. There are a few useful things in it (such as noting the term kinesthesia is synonymous for proprioception) and these should be cut and transferred. If the article was rewritten to explore the neuropysiological subject of sensation, as opposed to providing an innaccurate overview of sensory physiology, then it should stay. Manning 06:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

    • If you want something merged merge it.  Don't come to WP:VFD.  If you want something rewritten, rewrite it.  Don't come to WP:VFD.  Neither of those tasks involve article deletion at any stage. Uncle G 16:01:10, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

      • Cut the self-righteous crowing. A simple - "This belongs somewhere else" would have been sufficient. Geez - you wonder why so many people leave the pedia - it's arrogant and demeaning conduct like yours that causes it. It was totally unnecessary and offensive. Listing this on VFD was the best I could come up with for what I saw was a problem page. Sure I'm sorry it was the wrong thing to do - and you can be damn sure I'll never do it again, as it appears I'll only get jumped on by arrogant jerks like you in future. Manning 04:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)







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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



XSABERX


Vanity. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 23:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Colorado v Missouri, 1990 football game


It does not appear this nomination by User:The Killer was ever completed, so I am posting it here. I vote keep myself and it seems this could be closed as a speedy keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:08, 2005 August 16 (UTC)




Keep, agree with MysteryDog. Xaa 20:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)




  • Keep- a very famous game, still notable.  Also redirect items such as "5th down game" here.  Sensation002 14:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Obvious Keep - Think about it, it's a Hall of Shame instance that hapened 15 years ago, and it's still creating a controversy....--CrazyTalk 06:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Send to cleanup. This page does not explain how this game or a "fifth down" is special. If the page is to be kept, the page needs to undergo some cleanup first. Martg76 15:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



User:Bala and User talk:Bala


Delete as blatant link spam in user space. User pages should have a link to the project and not be used as a hosting service. According to  this help desk request the user has no other useful edits. - Mgm| 08:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)








        • It doesn't really do any harm deleting it; someone can re-add the welcome template if they're so inclined.  This prevents reversion back to the advertising, and adds weight to the community disapproval for such tactics.  I don't imagine that the user in question cares much about the page either way—he hasn't edited under that name since April 2004, and his only edits were to create the spam user pages and add a spam link to Google (search engine). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)









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


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. The correctly spelled redirect already exists, and points to the same target. I've fixed the double redirect caused by the capitals.-Splash 21:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



Single Member Consituency


wrong spelling (should be "constituency"), no pages link here, page with correct spelling exists =Travisyoung= 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Moghouse.net


1.5 million Alexa.  A Final Fantasy forum.

lots of issues  | leave me a message 08:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. P.S. Sockpuppet votes are teh sux. Redwolf24 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Protectors of the Plot Continuum


Not notable, internet based group. feydey 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Kishor


Delete seems/reads like nn vanity or self promotion. I'm not sure how exactly to verify the notability of life gurus but a google search of kishor "life guru" only returns 1 result. If notability is established I'll gladly change my vote, but currently the subject's importance seems questionable, especially since the author only has two edits: creating the article and placing a link in guru. TheMidnighters 09:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Seeno


Reason why the page should be deleted. Seems an advertinsing page of an unknown artist and his soon to be released debut album. the same appeared quite at the same time on it:, es: and el: Snowdog 09:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




  • Comment i have seen him play in Washington DC and think he is amazing. I made the page and follow his tour with other fans when he plays with his band.  This is most certainly not a page about vanity or promotion.  It is simply acknowledging that there is a singer in the Washington DC area who has just released his album and will be touring Central Asia in September of 2005.  How much more to the point without vanity can you be when you have only just relased an album? I don't think it should be deleted. Fernando Junco 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC) (Comment actually by 141.156.190.35 (talk · contribs))



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


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


The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 23:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Carol Rosin


Non-verifiable and highly suspect, reads like a self-promo, looks like a person of no real prominence except a few posts on some far fringe UFO conspiracy sites. GeneralPatton 09:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete. Considering how notable the articles makes her seem, she should have some mention on some other credible site. I can't find any on Google, although I may have missed something. I can only find one reference to which awards in particular she has won, and they seem to be obscure ones sponsored by UFO societies and the such. Nothing solid on her work at Disney or IBM either. Unless someone can find some way to show that it's verifiable, it needs to be deleted. Fipe 10:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep — appears valid, although borderline close to copyvio in places. — RJH 16:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Weak Delete She clearly is the head of ISIC, as stated by its own website. I also found a few outside mentions of her testifications to Congress on Kucinich's bill. What I couldn't find was verification of much else, or a sign that ISIC is a large enough player in international politics that it's founder should be mentioned. The "support" for it's treaty leads to a dead link, and it hasn't been picked up by any countries. --Icelight 19:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep for all the reasons Icelight mentions. Trollderella 01:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep I agree with RJH--Falphin 21:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



History of Sikh Mother Land


Misplaced Pages being used as an advertising forum? Manik Raina 10:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



Please use subst:vfd2 in the future, so section editing will work and to lessen server load. Also vfd tags should be on top of the article. - Mgm| 10:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)




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


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


The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 23:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



List of Sikhs


I came across a debate in wikipedia vfd where the conclusion seemed to be against retaining unmaintainable lists. It is my belief this list is one of them. For example, what is the criterion for someone to be included in this list? Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



    • As stated , the sikhs are a very clearly defined group, a page like this gives very little information to the reader of this page that a person is a practicing sikh. It is visually quite apparent. Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



How the Government Gave Itself the Power to Spy on You


Assuming this isn't a copvio (only one, irrelevant, Google hit for "Edward Keenes" and none for the article title) it looks very much like (badly formatted) original research Loganberry (Talk) 10:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



Fixed formatting. - Mgm| 10:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)



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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



De clercq


I don't see how the manager of a bank in one particular city can be notable enough for an article. Yes, the president of the bank (which is Dutch by the way) would be notable, but he isn't and there's surprisingly little info. I deleted a list of languages, which I assume he speaks, but I couldn't verify. Delete. If kept it should be renamed to follow naming conventions. - 131.211.210.12 10:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Got logged out and forgot to sign back in before writing the nomination. - Mgm| 10:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


  • redirect to Frederik Willem de Klerk --Doc (?) 13:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • I don't think that's a good idea. Not only is it a different person, it's also a different spelling for the name and there's no indication it's a common misspelling or valid alternative for the South African president's name. - Mgm| 07:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



Shaheed Babbar Manjeet Singh Jalwehra


Badly written and non-verifiable article on a supposedly high ranking terrorist in Babbar Khalsa terrorist group in India. I found no hits on google except some similar pages calling him shaheed (martyr). What useful information does this page convey ? His list of friends ? Not encyclopadeic enough. Manik Raina 10:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



Please read: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)



I do agree with Nichalp fully, as the same thing happened in case of another article Vinodini Tarway. In case of the present page, my problem is different - I failed to find out the exact position. So my delete vote, perhaps recorded in haste,  may please be treated  as withdrawn. I would rather abstain. --Bhadani 14:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



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


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

The result of the debate was Keep Redwolf24 09:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)



Chelsea Charms


Hay everyone! Im new here and new to this deletion stuff. I think this page should be deleted because it is just nasty! I mean, what kind of woman does that to herself? She is SO ugly. Also she is very non-notable, she is just here so sicko-nerds who dont like to surf out of wiki can come here and masturbate I think. Also we shouldnt promote this kinda harm, she probably has back problems, what if some woman comes here and thinks "id like to be like that" and decides to have an augmentation that completely destroys her health because of Misplaced Pages? Also, what if kids come here, they will be shocked and traumatized by those sick breasts. I also heard that a lot of libraries and stuff block Misplaced Pages (which is a great tool!) from there computers because it has porn on it like this "lady". Delete her! She is no good! DavidsCrusader 10:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete like I said above, PS. She offends all Americans by calling herself "Americas Huge Boob Sweetheart"! If you are American please fix this offense by deleting her off of here! -DavidsCrusader 10:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep; articles shouldn't be deleted just because you personally disagree with the subject. tregoweth 11:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep; you don't have to agree with what she does, but she's notable enough Lectonar 11:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep, I agree with the comment of Lectonar and Tregoweth. Misplaced Pages is not censored for anyone's protection and if you don't want to see it, simply don't click it and stay away from sex-related article. No reason in deletion policy to delete this. A doubt much other women have breasts that size, so only that would make her notable enough. - Mgm| 11:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

    • What about the "random article" feature, which is very prominent on the main page? If people need to avoid it, perhaps it should be taken down. Just because Misplaced Pages was started by groovy permissives it doesn't have to stay that way. Providing free publicity for porn merchants isn't one of the Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages, so it is negotiable. I doubt it is a core principal of Britannica or Encarta either. Bhoeble 14:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep The issue of deletion of a page is notability and she is notable.  The picture is an appropriate version of her as a person, not in any sex act.  Many of us do believe that Wiki needs standards, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, but there is nothing here to cause the deletion of anything on this page. One more important point: nothing in this article or picture was done specifically to get on Wiki--she did it on her own to promote herself and her career. --Noitall 13:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Speedy keep Clueless newbie nomination. --Ryan Delaney  13:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep. As per Lectonar. --GraemeL 13:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete Encyclopedia Britannica shows some degree of taste and Misplaced Pages should too. This information is of no use to anyone. Bhoeble 14:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



Comment. By your logic we should start deleting anything that we find tasteless, like Child pornography and REO Speedwagon. Sorry, Bhoeble, that makes no sense. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Keep — Religious censorship attempt. — RJH 15:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Speedy keep definitely notable. --Howcheng 16:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep. User:Pirate2000. Delete an article because the subject is "nasty"? Get real, if we delete every unpopular page there would be hardly anything left. Certainly articles shouldn't PROMOTE things like this, but that's the whole point of the NPOV policy.
    • 

  • Keep per, for example, Tregoweth Sliggy 19:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep. First:she exists. Second: she is notable (more or less). So, the article should stay as far as it is NPOV. And, last: Misplaced Pages isn't child book. It is not censored. Kneiphof 20:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep, and pre-emptive keep for Reo Speedwagon (shame on you Fernando Rizo;p!). Sabine's Sunbird 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Speedy Keep. Chelsea Charms is a celebrity of some notoriety and deserves a (short) entry. Geoff NoNick 21:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Delete Self-mutilation makes one notable???  Are some of the keep votes primarily a reaction against what looks suspiciously like a troll VfD?  Dlyons493 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Obviously it does; wikipedia doesn't establish criteria as to why you are notable. Think about athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs (I consider this self-mutilation) Lectonar  give me your thoughts! 
    • 

  • Keep. See also the following:

    • 

  • Keep per RJH et al --Apyule 02:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep for all the reasons stated above. --Etacar11 02:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Weak Keep. Inclination to keep on principle (the deletion arguments from "nastiness" or "self-mutilation" should be strongly opposed), but I really wonder about the subject's actual notability. Realistically, will we try to cover every adult entertainer? Everyone with a breast size over N inches/mm? Does breast size (or, conversely, penis size for a male performer) confer notability? (That's a serious question, not rhetoric.) MCB 06:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • In fact there does seem to be a major push on to accomplish just that - there are literally dozens if not hundreds of porn stars listed on wikipedia already. As for As for size and notability, I say the answer is certainly yes. There *are* porn stars who are famous mostly because of the size of their attributes.-Pirate2000

      • Dozens or hundreds is not unreasonable, considering that there are undoubtedly tens of thousands of adult performers. Separating out the actual "porn stars" from the universe of "porn actors/actresses" is worth doing to some extent. In past decades most people -- well, most people who pay attention to such things -- could name the dozen or so top porn stars. I don't know if that's still the case. MCB 07:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Speedy Keep If her breast size were one size bigger it would fall foul of Misplaced Pages:Maximum breast size allowed in encyclopedia entries, but as it stands, it's a perfectly acceptable article that has no place on VfD. KeithD (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep, without researching her notability or looking at the article, simply because the nomination is absolutely invalid.  CanadianCaesar 23:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Keep Notable if in a "wow, what some people will do to themselves" sort of way. DreamGuy 00:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep - and comments like "Delete her! She is no good!" make me sick - what do you wanna do, little Crusader, shoot her? -- AlexR 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Speedy keep. Notable performer in her genre. Nomination expresses POV. 23skidoo 03:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Strong keep Clueless religious newbie nomination.  If this article should be taken down, then someone should start this post correctly, and maintain it correctly.--werty8472
    • 

  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with this. — JIP | Talk 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 

  • Strong Keep. Just because you do not like someone, it doesn't mean that you can just delete her from an encyclopedia!! Just because you don't promote something doesn't mean it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. One of the rules on Misplaced Pages is to submit neutral, non-biased entries, and as far as I can tell, this entry meets those guidelines. Just because there is an entry here on something, doesn't mean that that is a promotion for it. There are entries on Hitler and Stalin here too! Should we just get rid of those?!?! "what if some woman comes here and thinks 'id like to be like that' and decides to have an augmentation that completely destroys her health because of Misplaced Pages?" I honestly don't think that seeing an enry about someone or something on Misplaced Pages will influence someone to do something a drastic as that unless they are already considering it, and besides, if seeing an image of something like that on the internet will influence someone to do that, than they will be influenced to do a lot of things during any single simple search or click on wikipedia, google or any part of the web. I also heard that a lot of libraries and stuff block Misplaced Pages (which is a great tool!) from there computers because it has porn on it like this "lady". The picture accompanying the entry hardly pornographic. Unless you consider unexposed breasts pornographic, and that would make your views seem slightly paradoxical. Honestly, you come across as a naive, selfish, zealot who thinks that just because they have any sort of power or influence, that they can just take advantage of it for superfluous, selfish and spontanious things. It took a lot of effort not to simply type "YOU'RE STUPID" in all caps and continue a short response with an excessive amount of exclamation points and personal attacks, which I only could resist because i am better than that, which you evidently aren't, judjing by your entry. "She is SO ugly." Please, also, a reccomendation, if I were you, I would keep the amount of spelling and gramatical errors in my entry to a minimum, so that no one will draw conclusions about your level of intelligence. Which I know I did. --the9file
    • 

  • Keep: The reason for nomination does not appear to be based on Misplaced Pages content/deletion policy, and moreover, it has been suggested that these edits have been made merely to make a sock puppet account appear to have some legitimacy. --IByte 23:58, 19 August 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 speedied as only a single external link. - Mgm| 11:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)



Gorillamask


Content is a single link to another website - no other text.




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


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Redwolf24 23:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



T-Bone


It was nonsense, I tried to improve it, but its still basicly worthless. It seems to be about a non-remarkable canadian(?) wrestler anyway. Jack Cain 11:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)



  • Copied from the miscapitalized Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/T-bone. Move function isn't working, no votes to speak off. Will merge histories as soon as server is working friendly with me again. - Mgm| 11:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)



COMMENT: Google search for "TWA" with "T-Bone" and "Hardcore Champion" comes back blank.  A search on the three names who "created" the TWA comes back blank.  Unfortunately, the t-bone suplex is a fairly common move, so that skews the results a little, but I can't find anything on Google to imply that the TWA is a notable fed or that T-Bone is a notable wrestler.  (IMHO, the criteria for "notability" in professional wrestling is at least two television appearances with a major federation (In the USA, that'd be WWE, WCW, NWA, ECW) for pretty much anyone after 1975.  Before that, it's a bit harder to hash out...)  -HX



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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)



Brian Torby


Apparent hoax, see talk page at Talk:Brian Torby. Evercat 11:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

MaKe sure you get all the spin off fake articles. Like the organizations he created and any pages that link to this article.--Gary123 13:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




My main concern however is all the spinofff pages on the interent that use wikipedia as a source. A simple google search is flooded with wikipedia articles on this guy at hundreds of sites. Does anyone know whether or not they'll go down. I hate to see wikipedia responcibble for spreading false info throughout the interent. On a side note I just wanted to  point out that the Egypt/Libya example was added by the same guy who started saying this guy was fake. Also I think this might be a reason to beef up our security. I mean look how many people edited a completely ridiculous article and with all those edits look how long it lasted. And the only reason it ever got deleted was because some rogue pointed it out, if not for that it probaly still wouldnt have been deleted. --Gary123 13:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)



Organization for African Democracy


Apparent hoax, insufficient Google hits. See the discussion at Talk:Brian Torby. Evercat 11:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)



League of Nigerian Liberation


Apparent hoax, see Talk:Brian Torby. Insufficient Google hits. Evercat 11:45, 16 August 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. Redwolf24 09:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)



Pandora Peaks


If you want to know my reasons, they are the same as the ones I gave in the Chelsea Charms VfD. I mean, this is just lunacy. Plus one more very important additional reason is that she is even LESS notable than Chelsea Charms because she is not as big as her and is not the biggest in the world or whatever, which is a horrible title to have anyway. Who here finds her attractive? I just cant believe it. She looks like shes 30 and shes had a kid and shes just fat and people find this stuff sexy? Well, like I said, she is not notable, also look a her page, it says NOTHING about her, just advertisements and stuff about sex dolls and I dont know what else. I really wanna hear from women here because I think some men who have deviated from a godly path might be attracted to this kinda junk so we need some less-biased voices around here to show their opinions, I think theyll agree with me. Thanks and let the Wiki keep rocking! DavidsCrusader 11:59, 16 August 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.

					Category: