Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 7

July 7

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 to U.S. Highway 6. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

U. S. Highway 6

This page was created inadvertently; nothing links here; I have merged any pertinent information into U.S. Highway 6. CharlieZeb 7 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect, since the information was merged. Jaxl 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
• Redirect is the correct procedure after a merge to maintain GFDL authorship requirements. See: Wikipedia:Merge & WP:DA. DoubleBlue (Talk) 7 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for the tip, DoubleBlue. Jaxl 7 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

• Redirect, per DoubleBlue. Quite right. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 02:53 (UTC)
• Delete or Expand I cant find a single acrticle this could be merged with but it could possibly be expanded.
• Oh for heaven's sake just edit it to redirect to U.S. Highway 6. This isn't a VfD matter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
• Redirect. Doctor Whom 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
• Redirect, DoubleBlue is quite right. --NicholasTurnbull 21:27, 9 July 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. Woohookitty 07:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Kribananda Variyar

Given two days to improve the article, the anon author has chosen not to. At present it is a one line stub ("Thiru Muruga Kirupanandha Variyar, popularly known and reverently called as Variyar Swamigal was born at KangeyaNallur, a small village on the bank of 'Palar' river."), and a link. No article, no keep. Harro5 July 7, 2005 00:13 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity/advertising/no real content. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 00:24 (UTC)
• Delete nn or vanity. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity, nothing on google. Jaxl 7 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
• Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete, no indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 02:55 (UTC)
• Delete: As Harro5 says: no article, no keep. Obviously, it wasn't terribly important to the author to check in on it, either. We end up with some awful geostubs this way. Geogre 7 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/ad. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 01:16 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Machine Poets

non-notable band that fails to meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. Tobycat 7 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

I realise I may not be able to vote on this VfD, seeing as I wrote the article, but I wanted to point out that I have nothing to do with this band (so it's not 'vanity'), and that the three members are all prominant figures in Australia's independent music scene, each with histories datin g back to the late 1970s. I intend to expand on the article, hence its 'stub' tag. Cnwb 7 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

• You most certainly can vote. Seeing as you're not a brand new user, nor one with a tiny edit count, your vote would probably be counted by the closing admin. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Googling "Machine Poets" -poetry -poet (owing to the name's derivation) gives 21 hits, "Machine Poets" "Garry Gray" gives only 1 hit, as does "Machine Poets" "Andrew Picouleau" and "Machine Poets" "Ash Wednesday" gives 2. There is also no allmusic.com presence. Thus fails WP:MUSIC. Give them a few years to fill in the blanks and then give them an article. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
• Delete. No allmusic.com entry for this band or any of its members. I'm willing to reconsider my vote should the article be sufficently expanded and evidence of notability is presented. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
• Delete as per Splash. Jaxl 7 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)
• Delete. Okay, this may seem weird, but I'm voting to delete my own article. I agree that the band are not yet notable, and this was in the back of my mind when I wrote it.Cnwb 7 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
• Keep, apparently a notable project by notable "prominent figures in Australia's independent music scene." Kappa 7 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

• Is it? Are they? Can you show us evidence of this? I'm willing to vote keep if someone can, but it seems like you're pulling this reasoning out of thin air. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)

• Why are you asking me this? I didn't write the article. Kappa 7 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)

• I'm asking you because your comments assert that these people are notable, so I want to know how you came to that conclusion. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

• Cnwb seems like a honest person. Kappa 7 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)

• Some of us think that an encyclopedia should be based on facts and evidence, not good feelings and wishful thinking. Note that even Cnwb (who no doubt is an honest person) is voting delete. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
• It's very common to vote based on other people's assertions, if you don't believe the assertions you should challenge the people who made them. Cnwb is voting delete because s/he doesn't realize that being a project by 3 notable people makes it notable. Even if only Ash Wednesday is notable, this page should be merged with his article rather than deleted. Kappa 7 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
• Ok, you made the assertion that the band was notable: prove it. You only use the word "apparently" in your vote, and that just isn't good enough. -Splash 7 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)

• What type of editing standard is that Kappa? Articles should be independently verifiable not just taken on some other editor's words. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)

• Very quick googling shows that the other two have both been in projects which have released two albums: Garry Gray [1] and Andrew Picouleau [2]. Kappa 7 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

• So, I may be deluded, but at least I'm honest! Regarding notability; Ash Wednesday is perhaps the most notable, having played in The Models and Einsturzende Neubauten. But upon reflection, I don't think this outfit deserves an article, yet. Cnwb 7 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

• Please discuss it in Ash Wednesday's article then. Kappa 7 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

• Kappa, did my comment and research mean utterly nothing to you? -Splash 7 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)

• If three notable musicians get together to form a group, it should be covered, regardless of google results or whatever, because anyone who is interested in any of the three would be interested in the group. Kappa 7 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

• Are all three of them notable? Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)

• Well "the three members are all prominant figures in Australia's independent music scene, each with histories datin g back to the late 1970s". Kappa 7 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

• Self-evidently not. When Googled together with their band name, they go down in flames. To Google without the bandname is meaningless (lots of people could have any name you like). Merely quoting from an article extension to the article (which didn't provide any reference, proof, justification etc) doesn't prove the slightest thing: you can't say "this article is notable because this same article says here that it's notable". And I have a history going back to the 1970's!-Splash 7 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• Ok, that was a bad way to say what I meant. I meant that VfD is for establishing notability not merely asserting it (which is all you've done). By quoting back the very content that needs to be established, your argument is circular and internal. External verification of the notability of all 3 artists does not consist of a mere claim that they are notable — surely you agree that other evidence is needed. I personally didn't find any, and I looked. You've not looked (or haven't showed us where) but still seem to have found some! -Splash 7 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)

• Well my vote depends on Cnwb's word, which I believe is more reliable than a google test by someone who doesn't know any of the musicians' history. If Cnwb won't defend the notability of the other two, my keep vote is null, but Ash Wednesday has an article which shows notability so the material should be at least merged. Kappa 7 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

• Garry Gray played with the Sacred Cowboys, and in The Reals an early outfit of Ollie Olsen. Andrew Picouleau, besides playing with a multitude of small independent bands, has played in Dave Graney & the Coral Snakes. I think that in Australian independent music, they're on the fringe of notability. I still maintain that Machine Poets is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Cnwb 7 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

• Delete. Googling just "machine poets" only found a couple relevant links of the ones I checked, "Andrew Picouleau" only gets 29 displayed hits, mostly for a business person that may or may not be the musician, and "Garry Gray" doesn't get many relevant hits. But mostly, there isn't evidence of an album or tour, both of which are part of WP:MUSIC. Niteowlneils 7 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

• Delete: Not signed, not prominent, not influential. At this point, nothing points to notability of such a nature as to require an encyclopedia article, and such statements as "a group, it should be covered, regardless" sound like a former user who ended up founding his own wiki that keeps everything. He did, because that's now how this project works. Geogre 7 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

• "As a group of three notable musicians" is not the same as "as a group". Why shouldn't this group be covered inside the Ash Wednesday... is his biography supposed to end when he stops generating google hits? Kappa 7 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 04:25 (UTC)
• With great reluctance, I am going to vote delete. The Ash Wednesday article suggests they were formed since 1999. The low Google count is therefore significant. As far as I can tell, they have not released any records and, if they have, it hasn't achieved much success. While the musicians concerned have played in notable bands, there is no indication that this band is particularly notable at this stage.Capitalistroadster 7 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 09:55 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Cnwb, original author voted delete. Am I mis-reading speedy rules, or is this end of discussion? -Harmil 7 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)
• Keep The band of a well-known musician.  The Steve  06:04, July 10, 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 already deleted. Woohookitty 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Onan ben Drusoy

This page is fiction. See http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Mahadreck for a discussion of another creation by the same person.

I'm completing this nomination which was begun by anon IP 84.228.214.118. No vote. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

• Delete: A prank, an example of onanism. Geogre 7 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifable hoax. Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. An anon with too much time on his hands, clearly. Perhaps even move to BJAODN.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Vanessa Rivas

This is an apparent vanity page announcing the graduation of Ms. Rivas from Carnegie Mellon University. There is pretense of notability by way of a claim that, at 20 years old, she is the youngest woman to graduate since 1945. Since typical age of a college graduate is 21, I find it doubtful that Carnegie Mellon has gone 65 years without graduating a single female younger than that. It's outrageously unlikely. In any event, the information is not verifiable at the university website, the local press did not cover this supposedly historical event, and it is in fact thoroughly non-notable. Congratulations to Ms. Rivas on her graduation, but some genuine accomplishments would be nice before we start an article on her. Tobycat 7 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

• Delete NN likely vanity Terwilliger 7 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Google yields 127 hits, but they do not appear to be this person (they certainly don't refer to the graduation in the summaries). -Splash 7 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
• Delete per Terwilliger -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
• Delete: NN as per Tobycat, possible vanity. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, then vote at your choice of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2 --Carnildo 7 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)
• Delete NN Oliver Keenan July 7, 2005 20:29 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/doubtful claim. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 01:20 (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: 6k, 2d. 2cleanup are not votes to delete, and were cast before the cleanup so are probably votes to keep (8k, 2d). I didn't count them here to avoid misappropriating them. -Splash 02:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Dinan BMW

Delete - Reads like an advertisement. No assertion of notability or anything else of encyclopedic value. Rlandmann 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable business. Tobycat 7 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)
• Delete: Long spam. Would the next person to visit the article please nowiki the link, so they don't benefit from the time on VfD? Geogre 7 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

Cleanup. The article had been written as such an obvious ad that I didn't spot that this was an aftermarket supplier. Geogre 7 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

• Cleanup notable company with 10,000+ hits on Google as "Dinan BMW". Their after-market parts seem to be widely used, and thus notable. Article as stands is hopelessly POV and an ad, however and I have too many lost sheep on the burner right now. -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Highly notable designer and manufacturer of aftermarket BMW performance parts, and builder of race engines for two Grand-Am Daytona Prototype teams. --FCYTravis 7 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Thanks buckets for the stubification / cleanup, but aren't articles that are being VfDed not supposed to be moved until voting is over? I know I've held off on a couple of worthy renames until a VfD was over for exactly that reason. -Harmil 7 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)

If that's so, I wasn't aware of it. My apologies. I figured the move and redirect would leave enough in place to let people know it's the same article originally VFD'd. --FCYTravis 7 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)

• • I tried to turn it into something resembling a usable stub. --FCYTravis 7 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)
• Keep as per FCYTravis. Martpol 7 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
• Keep FCY Travis's stub. Capitalistroadster 7 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
• Keep and give FCY Travis a million wiki-dollars. Or some ice cream. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)
• Keep: Good work on cleanup. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Aftermarket supplier. Klonimus 8 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. I do so with pleasure. Woohookitty 07:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

BoycottLiberalism.com

Delete. Wikipedia is not a webguide. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Jaxl 7 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
• Delete nn, Alexa traffic rank is 817,982 and only Google hit is their website. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity/promo/nn. Kaibabsquirrel 7 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Tobycat 7 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)
• Delete per Splash -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a webguide. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
• Delete per Splash. Xoloz 7 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT web directory. (How does one boycott a political philosophy, anyway? Stop eating at Chomskyburger?) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 12:08 (UTC)
• Delete: Webguide. ("Don't shop at Marx and Engels," probably.) Geogre 7 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)
• Delete I dont exactly no if this is really that neutral and Wikipedia is not an advertising place!!!!!
• Delete: NN. But I'm still signing up. Thanks, Wiki! —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
• What, did Ben and Jerry kill their dog? Delete. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 03:38 (UTC)
• Delete not a web guide Axon 16:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Eston Bond

This appears to be a vanity page for a non-notable forum participant who played a role in a recent (non-notable) internet hoax. An article about that hoax is also up for a deletion vote. Tobycat 7 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

• Delete vanity related to Greenlighting, also up for VfD. "Eston Bond" Greenlighting gets zero Google hits. Just "Eston Bond" only gets 467 so is nonnotable whichever you count. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
• Delete: Something Awful cruft, celebration of the Internet on the Internet, other projects with "limited" success. Absolutely not a fit subject for encyclopedic biography. Geogre 7 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
• Delete, attempted hoax is itself not notable, one of its creators is certainly even less so. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 04:27 (UTC)
• Keep This man has done more important things than a lot of other people that Wikipedia have done.
  • Note: above vote was by User:Misfits138, a new user. This same user received warnings today (User talk:Misfits138) about removing VfD notices from an article that links to this one.Tobycat 7 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
  • Then perhaps he should get off this "greenlighting" crap, and continue doing those things!
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Chuck July 7, 2005 17:25 (UTC)
• Delete: NN, non-encyclopedic. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:38 (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. Woohookitty 07:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Eagle video

Vanity. Justin (koavf) July 7, 2005 01:21 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising/Vanity. The entire text of the article is: "Eagle video is a small town video store located in Mont Belvieu, Tx. It offers over 3,000 video titles including the newest releases and the most lackluster clerks you can find."Tobycat 7 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
• Delete vanity ad. Jaxl 7 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. (I always thought there were more such clerks at Lackluster Video.) Geogre 7 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
• Delete nn, but doesn't seem to be advertising since it refers to the clerks as "lackluster." You (Talk) July 7, 2005 14:36 (UTC)
• Delete: NN. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)
• Delete nn pseudo-advertising/mild attack page. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, but most votes to keep were to merge, so merging and redirecting to Minor vehicles in Star Wars. — Gwalla | Talk 01:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Scarab Starfighter

nn, about a particular ship in a particular, apparently nn, game. Much of the article is mere speculation. Friday 7 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. unlikely to ever be more than what it is now, which is speculative trivia.Tobycat 7 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
• Delete: Use only union starfighters, not scabs! (Kidding.) Speculation on what "maybe" a ship that was "maybe" made by a faction in a game. Subtrivial subcruft. Geogre 7 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
• Well, a decent article could be written about this, as this site proves. Nevertheless, I think this is below the bar for Star Wars notability, so delete.-LtNOWIS 7 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

• I change my vote to merge to Minor vehicles in Star Wars. Other video-game only vehicles are there.-LtNOWIS 9 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be canon, and the article is valid, if in need of some cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 7 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)
• Abstain. The vehicle is indeed canon, and the Lucasarts website indicates that the Scarab fighter will have more information on it in some upcoming books, along with other vehicles featured in the game. We can either keep the article until then, or someone will come along and write it when more information is available. I don't think it matters really; whoever writes the new one will most likely remove the information in this one anyway. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like it only exists in a game. This makes is non-canon by definition, does it not? I thought Lucas always claimed only the films were canon. Anyway, there's no article about the game, so why is one particular type of ship used in the game more notable than the game itself? Friday 7 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
  • Lucas divides SW into canon levels. Movies are the top level, followed by EU books. Games are in the lowest level, but vehicles mentioned in games are almost always considered canon. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, the various games are considered to be as canonical as fanfiction. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
    • Not quite. For instance Kyle Katarn played a major role in SW despite being a video game character; his story has been moved to books and is considered quite canonical. Certainly more so than, say, Ken, who only appears in some books. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 16:39 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
• Delete, not verifiable. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 12:40 (UTC)

• How exactly is this not verifiable? A quick "Scarab star wars" search comes up with lot's of official hits. It's in Star Wars Wiki and TheForce.Net's encyclopedia.-LtNOWIS 9 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

• Merge Into Minor vehicles in Star Wars: Though clearly undeserving of its own article, it can be merged into the Minor Vehicles article and expanded a bit. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 9 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
• Merge per LtNOWIS. KissL 07:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Every single one of the 393 annoying Pokemons get their individual pages, I don't see why this is any less notable than any of them. Delete all or keep all. -Hmib 06:41, 14 July 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. Woohookitty 07:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Present-day proponents of establishing cooperative relationships between humans and horses

I don't even know what this is supposed to be... Justin (koavf) July 7, 2005 01:29 (UTC)

• Delete, inherently POV, original research, impossible title. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 02:59 (UTC)
• It looks like a fork of horse breaking. It seems like some editors didn't like the violence of that article and decided to make a new article about non-violent horse training, or something. Forks are not valid articles, and forks should never be done to solve consensus issues. Also, this article is virtually unsearchable and could only be found by links, which would, of course, only be inserted by the editors of this article. Therefore, even though it has a long history, I'd have to say merge back to whichever article it sprang from. Geogre 7 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
• Delete Every section is a short blurb and a link to a site that sells a book or DVD on some kind of horse training technique. What's more, it's hopelessly POV and a potential POV fork per [User:Geogre|Geogre]] -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising linkspam. - Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 08:28 (UTC)
• Delete: ?? —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
• Delete POV and ridiculously long title. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
• Send to Industrial rendering Klonimus 8 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)
• Delete horses are stupid, its pigs that have intellect. ~~~~ 00:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:52, 12 July 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 redirect - since the "article" in question could quite rightly be speedied as a "very short article providing little or no context" (and likely a hoax as well), I am going to boldly redirect it now and close this VfD. Lest anyone have concerns over this action, bear in mind that the content of the article was, in its entirety:

"Wuzzels are a source of fiber."

-- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 21:05 (UTC)

Wuzzels

Vandalism Justin (koavf) July 7, 2005 01:30 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef, though dictionary.com says it doesn't even exist. Jaxl 7 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
• Delete, then recreate as a redirect to The Wuzzles. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 03:00 (UTC)
  • (nothing in the article history would mandate deletion prior to redirection). -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 03:04 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:BD2412 -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
• Delete short dicdef without context, almost speedy material. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)
• Redirect as per BD2412 (Google shows this is actually the name of the Dutch version, and not inconceivable as misspelling). Discard current content. --IByte 7 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
• Redirect: to cover misspellings. Current article is nonsene. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:32 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

QDS

neologism Tobycat 7 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

• Delete neologism with no support for notability, possibly vanity neologism -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Was this created by an Andrew Lin sockpuppet? JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted by me. It wasn't even a sentence (no verb). Geogre 7 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sam azarian

Shows up on Google, but doesn't appear especially notable. Gazpacho 7 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

• Delete not notable person / non notable business. Tobycat 7 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)
• Delete a better article might have convinced me, but I see no notability here. -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
• Delete a few relevant hits on google, but not too many. [3] Jaxl 7 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. "Lowercase surname" should be a criterion for speedy deletion. =) — JIP | Talk 7 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• Delete: NN. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 01:48 (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 merge and redirect to Clone commander. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Clone trooper commanders

This article appears to be nothing more than a less detailed version of the Clone commander page. At the very least, they should be merged.Jon Hart 7 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

• Merge yes, it's fancruft, but I'm too easy on the Star Wars stuff -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)
• Merge with Clone commander. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 04:30 (UTC)
• Re-direct to Clone commander. Fernando Rizo 7 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
• Merge. Then Delete. --Maru 7 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete: No point in a redir. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect: Redirects are cheap and aid in finding the article one wants. --IByte 7 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)
• Merge - redirects are also required after merges to preserve history as per GFDL requirements. -- Jonel | Speak 8 July 2005 16:03 (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. — Gwalla | Talk 01:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Diagrams of density

The diagrams are kinda interesting (even if a couple seem kinda flawed), but with no text, this hardly seems like an "article", and last I checked Wikipedia is not just a collection of loosely related diagrams. Niteowlneils 7 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

• Delete; I'd suggest some be put into the density article, but they're too simplistic. Jaxl 7 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

• I agree that they would be more useful in the Commons (they're not that bad looking); if licensing info is provided, move the images there. Delete this article though. Jaxl 7 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

• Merge - I think some are nice looking. gren 7 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)
• Move to Wiki Commons. These (rather decent) images could be useful illustrations. The author just put them in the wrong place.Tobycat 7 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)
• Don't move to the commons until the author provides some licensing info. Include any useful images in an appropriate article. Delete this page. - Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 08:30 (UTC)
• Delete the article. Pending licensing information, move to commons. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
• The images are nice, but we're talking about the article here, and it should clearly be deleted due to no text content. KissL 07:57, 12 July 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. Woohookitty 07:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Manjushri Kadampa Meditation Centre

As written, nothing more than an ad (complete with website link). · Katefan0^(scribble) July 7, 2005 02:58 (UTC)

• Delete advert. Gazpacho 7 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)
• Delete I see no sign of notability, if there is post on my talk page and I will revisit the information. gren 7 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Jaxl 7 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)
• Delete: above. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
• Delete- agree with all reasons cited above.--Bhadani 05:14, 10 July 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. Vote was 23 to 10 if I counted right. Around 70%. Woohookitty 08:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Loxley

Tag added to article by User:TheMidnighters but no VfD page created. I have no opinion on the merits of the article. Kelly Martin July 7, 2005 03:01 (UTC)

• Delete Modern poet with all of 5 hits on Google. NN -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
• Delete for now: Non-notable, page seems to have been created by semi-vandal (might be clueless n00b) who added link to Wikipedia:Articles_requested_for_more_than_a_year as well. I will, however, change my vote if someone can provide a good reason to keep it around.—chris.lawson (talk) 7 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
• Keep I was pleasantly surprised to see this entry, sadly it is up for deletion. I teach at York University in Canada. Loxley was a student of mine a few years ago. His name is only recently broken out into the mainstream of Canadian Literature, but he is sure to make his mark. I strongly support this article and the content to come User:Duke10 7 July 2005 03:35 (UTC) — (Duke10's 1st edit.)
• Keep My name is Amanda and I am the creator of this Kevin Loxley section. Certainly I am happy to see that at least one other person has expressed a positive comment as for keeping the page up. As stated in the section, little is known about Loxley, but his name is a major buzz in Canadian literary publications. It is believed by this scholar that Loxley has been publishing for at least six years under the radar. This interesting man and gifted scholar is very much worthy of a page here. But, if not now, don't be surprised when his page pops up again as his popularity grows. AmandaNewman 7 July 2005 03:54 (UTC) — (AmandaNewman's 2nd edit.)
• Delete. Five hits for "Kevin Loxley" and zero for "Eros of Anxiety". Niteowlneils 7 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)
• Delete, and hope his career goes well and we can add him later. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 04:31 (UTC)
• Delete for now. As said earlier only five hits on Google. I couldn't find any list of publsihed works. Buzz doesn't warrant an entry, hopefully he'll come out with some works and become notable. Being a "supposed author" with "supposed writings" of whom "little is known" just doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
• Delete not notable (for now). The great thing about Wikipedia not being paper is that it's easy to add an entry later. All the best to Mr. Loxley and, if he succeeds, I'm sure there will be an article on him here.Tobycat 7 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, vanity. Xoloz 7 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, most of the article is conjecture and not verifiable. The external link timed out for me. Also smells a bit hoaxish, given the possible sockpuppet antics above and below. Forged votes aren't going to get you anywhere, people. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 12:17 (UTC)
• Keep Marginal Keep. The article is not complete and a little vague, but I feel it has potential. Chris 12:24 (UTC) — (Forged edit actually by 67.70.13.126 (talk · contribs), whose other edits are mostly to the article in question.)
• Keep This is my first edit, which probably limits my cradibility. However, it needs to be stated that this article, although incomplete, needs to stay. The reason that Loxley has few hits on the net is because he does not publish under his own name. I have heard about him in passing, and he is attempting to create altered opinions of artistic reception, or something like that. Anyway, it is interesting stuff. Keep it around. RichardW
• Delete - Not notable, conjecture at best. (Luckily, my cradibility is limitless!) -- Marvin01 7 July 2005 14:50 (UTC) — (Marvin01's 7th edit.)
• Keep; could be a decent article jamesgibbon 7 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
• Delete article says he is "little known" with "minor notoriety". That settles the issue, along with the absence of Google hits and damn sock/meat puppetry. -Splash 7 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
• Keep A mass email has been send out by Amanda Newman to the Listserv of two Canadian universities, as well as Canadian Lit. publications. So, expect more debate. Loxley is the real deal. His work is only recently come to the attention of the literary world. JanP 7 July 2005 15:51 (UTC) — (JanP's 2nd edit.)
  • So, we can expect an influx of newly-registered users whose only purpose on Wikipedia is to defend this article. Wonderful. To those new users, please see this page, specifically as it relates to voters who register after the nomination for deletion has been made. We welcome debate, and if Loxley is indeed "the real deal," someone will be able to produce a verifiable source for this claim. Bald assertions, however, are not very useful. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 16:10 (UTC)

If his work has come to the attention of the literary world then name some of "his work". So far there is absolutely nothing verifiable. These keep voters are all making logically contradictory claims. First, what he's written is a nebulous, tantalizing mystery then he's a Canadian literary sensation within the span of a few hours. At the worst this is a hoax, at best a case of non notable vanity. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

• Keep Hopefully the article has some content added soon. Worthy article. Anyone with questions concerning Loxley can email me (David) at: [email protected] LRAWeb — (LRAWeb's 1st edit.)
  • Here are two simple questions you can answer :a) What has he written? b)What praise, success have these works received? This is the most basic information for any author and all that would be needed to establish notability. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
  • If you've got verifiable information about this person, add it to the article. Don't expect people to email you for more information. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
• Keep I think the point that most 'Keep' voters here are trying to make is that Loxley doesn't have a following on the Internet for the simple reason, he does not publish under his own name. I strongly stand behind Amanda for attempting to uncover some knowledge about him. brmc69 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC) — (brmc69's 1st edit.)
  • It is not Wikipedia's place to uncover anything, as that would be original research. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 16:23 (UTC)
• Delete If he doesn't publish under his own name, why not start an article about the name he's notable under? Wikipedia is not an avenue for publicity; once Mr. Loxley is notable, come back and make an article then. As it stands now, he does not meet the standards for notability. Fernando Rizo 7 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable. Make an article for his pseudonym, if it's notable. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, if the claims made in the article can be verified. If not, delete with our best wishes for Mr. Loxley's future notability. -Thepinterpause 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
• Delete - Self-identified as not notable, yet. Come back when he is. Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
• Delete. Whenever "little is known" about someone who is 25 years old it's usually because he's not noteworthy. This isn't some mysterious figure of antiquity. I think "supposed" writings says it all. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)
• Keep This article can always be deleted later, if he does not become famous or noteworthy. User:Duke10, User:AmandaNewman, and User:LRAweb made strong arguments. However, User:TheMidnighters is right. Put up some of his work! -Hyad July 7, 2005 22:18 (UTC)
  • Strong arguments? They consist of, "No, really, he's going to be famous, and we'll dig up some stuff on him really soon!" AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
  • "This article can always be deleted later, if he does not become famous or noteworthy." Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, so you should be saying "This article can always be created later, if he does become famous or noteworthy." KissL 08:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the article is completely rewritten (well). Regardless of the actual notability of this alleged person, the article itself is a heap of ambiguous unsupported claims.
• Delete. I follow the Canadian literature circuit fairly closely and have and have never heard of him. And sock puppets are not good. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 7, 2005 23:10 (UTC)
• Delete. The article admits to no current notability, therefore NN. If he becomes notable, he will get an article then. Wikipedia can't be used to promote or predict this. --A D Monroe III 7 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If this guy makes it big, he'll get an article then. Right now he's not notable. Not to mention sock-puppet supported. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Another case of influx of sock- or probably meatpuppets (=people recruited specifically to swing the VFD vote) supporting someone only locally prominent - if even that. Another "collegial" influx prank to support a "friend's" inclusion to Wikipedia. Has anyone invented a good name for that phenomena yet? - Skysmith 8 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. There is no indication of notability and this certainly smells like a prank, judging by the "support" for it. On the off chance that it's not a prank, I don't think anyone will miss the article at this stage of his "career". Bobbis 8 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
• Delete- sufficient reasons have already been given.--Bhadani 05:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN, SLX, whatever. KissL 08:01, 12 July 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. Woohookitty 07:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

David P. Gray

Whoever this is (presumably Mr. Gray) has been spamming Wikipedia with links to his website and this article all over. Besides it being autobiography, it's a) a resume/ad and b) not particularly encyclopedic. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 7, 2005 03:33 (UTC)

• As fantastic as it is that he was involved in making some video games I never heard of, as recently as 12 years ago... I think I have to go with Delete. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 04:33 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious self-promo. Egad, the contributor even copied over the copyright notice. Perhaps we should slap a copyvio on the article as well? Tobycat 7 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)
• Delete as per both Scimitar and Tobycat -Harmil 7 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, not notable, ad, copyvio, ... KissL 08:07, 12 July 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. 17 to 6. Woohookitty 08:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Stewart

A shocking one (1) hit on google for "Stephen Stewart" Deanmark. Blatant self-promo. 7 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

• I goofed up just about everything on this one. That's me above. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 7 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Very weak but-I live in NYC and I've actually heard of this guy...apparently he HAS won quite a few competitions. There is not much in the search engines--i must agree (yahoo gives only 3)-- but, DJs (just like producers & writers) don't get much usually anyway. I searched around iTunes and did find his name in 1 credit for an un-popular song. Maybe delete until this person is a little MORE noteworthy. But then again-maybe I'm bias because i'm a DJ myself. DJ Ferno 7 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)
  • User has 2 edits. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)
• Keep - Jeff Towes here a.k.a. DJ Jazzy Jeff. This kid is legit. He came through my A Touch of Jazz Studio a few times when we were open. He's got tracks coming out this fall. I think one is for Mya's new album. Jeff Townes 7 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
  • User has 7 edts. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)

• If this user is for real, he would know. Notable in his own right. DJ Jazzy Jeff. Wikibofh 7 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

• Assuming it's really him. Even if it is, I'd like to point out that the vote signed to carracer233 was written by him, as was the user's userpage. --Scimitar 9 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Heard of him-has a notable rep., but the google results really kill the cause Vinylkings 7 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
  • User has 4 edits. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)
• Delete - I see what above ppl are saying and in my opinion...not notable engough (yet)HarperUconn 7 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
• Weak keep - reasons above... gren 7 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)
• Comment. While the article is well-written and well-presented, notability against WP:Music guidelines is not established in that no material appears to have been released to the public in his name and he has limited credits to other people. Allmusic.com has no record of a DJ called Stephen Stewart. Perhaps, when the tracks are released we can have a look at it then. However, I would vote to keep if information was released on tracks he was involved in. Capitalistroadster 7 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't know much about hip-hop but this young fellow seems for real. I ain't never seen a fake promotional page on here that looks as good as this one here. We shouldn't descriminate against people because they arer in areas that don't appeal to most of us who vote. (NASCAR RULES!) carracer233 7 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
  • User has, and this is rich, 0 edits. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Xoloz 7 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)
• Comment With exception of Gren, all keep appear to have come from users created this morning. Welcome to Wikipedia, Carracer, Jeff Townes, VinylKings. Nice of you to find your way to this VfD. Xoloz 7 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

All their first edits were right here too. And even stranger, Jeff Townes wrote Carracer233's user page. Could there be something slightly awry in this scenario? And wow, carracer speaks like a stereotypical cracker from the south, what with the Nascar and "ain't" etc. . . And if you check this entry's history, you'll see that Jeff Townes was so kind as to sign keep for carracer. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

• Delete nn--Porturology 7 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
• Delete. I wasn't going to vote, but I did a little tiny bit of edit counting (as did a few others above) and decided that perhaps this article is not as subject to grassroots support as you might believe. NN, vanity, possible socks. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)
• Delete: Not yet notable. When he has the release and it leads the way, gets favorable reaction from the public or critics, then it will be time for an article. Anticipated anything is inappropriate, whether a game, a politician, or record. Geogre 7 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

• Keep; can't wait to find out my edit count jamesgibbon 7 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

↑This user's 335th edit. :-) -Splash 7 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, likely vanity/friend vanity, more socks than I have in my laundry basket and more meat than my local buchers. And a picture. Allmusic.com has a few Steven Stewarts, but none of them have done anything (and one of them isn't even him, from the picture)-Splash 7 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
• Far be it from me to argue with DJ Jazzy Jeff, but... Delete, fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 16:43 (UTC)
• Delete: Sockpuppet supported Schieße. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)
• Delete - sockpuppetry limit exceeded. (wherefore art thou, RickK?) --FCYTravis 7 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)
  • Comment - please read wiktionary:wherefore. -- Jonel | Speak 8 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
• Keep: Seems to have minor notability. (Oh, and edit count says I have 2265 edits, not including this one  :) Wikibofh 7 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
• Delete; being a New Yorker myself, I've never heard of this guy. I agree with Geogre, it seems like he may be notable in the future, but not as of now. Jaxl 7 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

• Delete -I wish the man well. Come back when you are notable, and let's hope you soon are. Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self-promotion. +picture. +sockpuppets. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:SOCK. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 12:41 (UTC)
• Delete.  Grue  8 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
• Delete. SLX. KissL 08:13, 12 July 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. Woohookitty 08:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Gnova

Neologism Denni☯ 2005 July 7 04:14 (UTC)

• Delete - just a neologism. searched for: gnova "footsteps of our peers", found one result, a page that repeated the article. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism...and not even a good one. Tobycat 7 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)
• Delete: Neolo. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Jaxl 7 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons--Bhadani 05:26, 10 July 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. Woohookitty 08:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeera Polyandre Charnoe

0 google hits (scholar and print included). This is not the best test for notability but with its horrible formatting it looks either vanity or made up. If it is by some chance notable then hopefully this VfD will produce references for the article. gren 7 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks like nonsense to me. Tried various Google searches and found nothing relevant. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
• Delete Changed to Keep non-notable/not-verifiable. I noticed that the article now states the source as his wife and student. If external and verifiable sources can be provided, then I'd consider changing my vote. As it currently stands, though, I think removing the article is the right thing to do. I've reviewed the sources now listed on the talk page and am satisfied that this is a real person with real accomplishments. I note that this person holds patents in Canada, the United States, and Europe. I also note that the author has provided satisfactory sources to justify a keep, in my opinion. Though many of the sources are not online, I think we have to be careful about deleting content that lacks online reference. There's lots of information out there that has not yet landed on the Internet so we must be mindful not to toss stuff simply because we cannot quickly validate it with google. Since the publications and patents are now verified, I think we should keep and let this article grow and mature. Updated: Tobycat 05:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)
• Delete: Like above. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
• Delete: A person is involved in that ridiculously large amount of subjects and still gets zero Google hits? Oh please, that's a hoax. --IByte 7 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
  • Oh, here's a misdirected cry for help on the creating user's talk page. How about asking her for some solid references? (Which obviously excludes "because I say it's true") Note that I currently see no reason to change my vote. --IByte 23:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I will change to keep because of the patent information. The article needs a lot of help and to be sourced, but, I am not sure if it meets most people's sense of notability but it's enough that if I had seen the patents before I wouldn't have put up for VfD gren 05:49, 12 July 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 merge and redirect to List of stations on the C-Train. – ABCD✉ 16:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

4 Street Southwest/6 Street Southwest

Admirable dedication and attention to detail... but not notable. - Aaron Brenneman 7 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

• Further examination reveals 30 more like this one. (Category:C-Train stations) I have respect for the job done and the time taken, but none of these are likely to ever be expanded into notable articles. If someone gets killed at a tram stop (either someone famous or in an unusual way) then perhaps. The existing C-Train article is well sourced and should suffice. - Me Again 7 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)
• Hmm... I think subway stations and railway stations are notable enough to justify individual articles, while bus stops definitely are not. Light rail is something in between, but are probably closer to subways than buses in regards to notability. Considering how short these articles are, I would suggest merging all of them together to a List of stations on the C-Train. Sjakkalle (Check!) 7 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
• Delete, of course something like Grand Central Station is notable... but not every stop on every mass transit line in every city! Nothing notable about this particular one at all. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 16:45 (UTC)
• Merge: as per Sjakkalle. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
• Merge otherwise keep, Subway stops are notable. Klonimus 8 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)
• Merge per Sjakalle. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 12:41 (UTC)
• Keep or merge --SPUI (talk) 9 July 2005 00:34 (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 — Gwalla | Talk 01:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

How to Kill a Mockingbird

Non-notable internet fad with not all that many google links. Possibly vanity. --Tothebarricades July 7, 2005 05:40 (UTC)

• Delete nn flash, wiki is not a web directory, etc. Friday 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
• Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:52 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Why do we delete this article, yet keep other internet fads like All your base are belong to us? -Ichabod 7 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
  • All your base are belong to us is extremely notable. This isn't. Cyclone49 7 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's like saying get rid of Star Wars because we got rid of some amateur film that 300 people have seen. Poor analogy. --Tothebarricades July 8, 2005 07:49 (UTC)
• Delete wiki is not a web directory nor vehicle for self promotion Moriori July 7, 2005 08:46 (UTC)
• Delete per Moriori. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 16:46 (UTC)
• Delete: NN, vanity? —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)
• Delete, though I must note that, unlike most crap, the article is pretty well-Wikified. -Thepinterpause 7 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to the famous novel To Kill a Mockingbird. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 12:42 (UTC)
• Delete I also second Moriori. Some internet fads are trend-setting anthropologically interesting; this one is purely stupid. The article contains nothing that isn't in the cartoon itself. July 9, 2005 22:15 (UTC)
• Keep Well, I thought it was pretty funny, so I'd like it to stay in. EvilPhoenix talk 22:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is a part of American culture. A small part, but still a part. Removing this is treason. DoomPenguin 22:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC) vote is actually by 66.82.9.54 (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 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 — Gwalla | Talk 01:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Cormatics

• No citation given; a Google search produces nothing. Suspect non-notable, or outright hoax. -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 05:48 (UTC)
• Delete - A gang of 200 founded in a high school less than a year ago whose "activities are unkown". TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable, possible hoax. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 7 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:52 (UTC)
• Keep Found evidence on yahoo and on the city website. Matt miller 7 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)
• Keep I live in sacramento and they are real, thats all i have to say, oh and they are on yahoo. Sean_opra 7 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)
• Keep Oxykottonkandie is an underground rapper, and he always raps about the cormatics and wearing orange. It is real, im sorry if this is the first web article about it but its true. Gilbertman 7 July 2005 2:33 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment: all three look like probable sockpuppets, only contributions are this vfd. Furthermore, no citation of the Yahoo reference. -- Natalinasmpf 8 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 8 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. KissL 08:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep [4] What do hungarians and singaporians know about California, check the link. Get over it the gang is real just let it go. Stander 12 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
• keep I am a founding member of the cormatics, yall ever heard of Dr. Cocktopus? Not that im involved in anything illegal or anything, but they are for real. Come to Rocktown if ya don't believe me. Dr.Cocktopus 13 July 2005 5:52 (UTC) vote actually from 69.19.171.230 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and cleanup. 5k+c, 2d. Listed at cleanup (already tagged). -Splash 02:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The Rebirth Of Fusion

Fancruft, and all it is is telling a play-by-play of the movie. A Link to the Past July 7, 2005 05:52 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup - It's the final movie in a very notable anime series. It's needs to be rewritten properly, but it's notable enough to be kept.Cyclone49 7 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
  • Oops, forgot to add, "The Rebirth Of Fusion"+"Dragonball Z" gives 950 hits on Google [5] Cyclone49 7 July 2005 09:40 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - I concur with Cyclone49. Google search shows a few, but noticably different and widely-spread hits. Obviously notable to somebody, I'm sure. Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established, fancruft. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup other DragonBall Z movies have EnWiki articles, so there's precedent. Fernando Rizo 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
• Keep: "Notability not established" is crap. It is notable. As stated, however, it requires help. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
• Keep per Cyclone49. KissL 08:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 06:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 8 keep, 4 delete, 1 rename, 1 merge and redirect. No consensus.

Mediterranean Region

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.-- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, there should be an article about the region -- in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find that we do have such an article -- but this reads like someone's high-school essay. It would probably be best to delete this and start over. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)
• Keep - A google search for "Mediterranean Region" (470,000 hits) shows that it is a phrase used by others (although often it is about Meditteranean Turkey and not the whole region, etc). However, this does not mean that this article should not be changed a lot and a lot more after that to make it encyclopedic. gren 7 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Mediterranean Sea Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 7, 2005 07:36 (UTC)
• Edit The principle behind this is correct and it is definitely not the same as Mediterranean Sea, which is a geography article primarily about the sea itself. There is a distinct socio-economic context here that is as valid as Northern Europe or Sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately the article needs a rather heavy rewrite to get it off its soap-box and make it NPOV. But then, lots of Wiki articles started that way. --Red King 7 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
• Delete: Well, duh, there's going to be a high google. But this article...no. Let it be restarted. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
• Delete. I was considering whether or not this should be edited and NPOV'd, but it seems like it would be better off starting from scratch. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
• Rename to Mediterranean region and cleanup. Appropriate subject for an article, godawful writing. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 21:09 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a real region, and is not about geography like Mediterranean Sea, or about distant history, like History of the Mediterranean region. It's not a stub, or as wildly POV as suggested above. It could be improved, but that should go without saying for almost any vfd article that is kept. --rob 7 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mediterranean Sea. Mishmash of unrelated issues. Martg76 7 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
• Vote on content: Delete. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)
• Keep. The content of the article is different from other Wikipedia articles, and well yes, it deals with problems in the Mediterranean region. These are based on facts. --Maltesedog 8 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, and move to correctly capitalized Mediterranean region. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 8 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)
  • Keep, and do what Angr says. --ROY YOЯ 15:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with User:Angr. Also, see the first heading of the Editing policy; although the article is not exactly the pinnacle of NPOV, there is potential there. You (Talk) July 8, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem with the article is not just POV-related, but also shaky English, and total failure to outline: It's not at all clear from this article what the Mediterranean region countries are, why they might have certain things in common or issues with each other, and why the article is concentrating on certain issues rather than seemingly much larger ones. Of course, these are editing things rather than VfD things. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 17:30 (UTC)
    • Exactly. The article has the potential to be encylopedic, and should be kept since there is at least a shred of potential there. You (Talk) July 8, 2005 17:40 (UTC)
• you could rename it 'everything I can think of which is wrong with the mediterranean and probably everywhere else'. It contains just about nothing you might expect to be in an article under its present name. You might extract sentences from it and stick them into other geographical articles for different countries, but people interested in those articles might object. I dont like deleting things, but where exactly does this stuff belong without a lot of work?Sandpiper 22:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Angr, although a horribly low quality article. KissL 08:24, 12 July 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

Richard Goncalves

Because of the lack of references for this article, the chance that such a position wouldn't even be notable even if referenced, the lack of formatting on this article, lack of relevant google hits (which isn't the best test of notoriety) I think this should be deleted. gren 7 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established, possible vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• Deletenn possibly hoax--Porturology 7 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)
• Delete: NN, can't verify. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)
• Userfy, assuming it's not a hoax. -Thepinterpause 7 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:00 (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 — Gwalla | Talk 01:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Dave Scott (Richer)

This page is about a non-notable and professionally unsuccessful musician. The article implies notability via association but that's a bit of a stretch. Tobycat 7 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

• Delete - nn/vanity. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 07:21 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)
• Delete: NN, possible vanity. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, not claim to notability asserted. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:17 (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 — Gwalla | Talk 01:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

International Moron Patrol

Nn.-- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable. Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)
• Delete: Low google, few related. NN —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:56 (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 — Gwalla | Talk 01:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

KMA

Not notable, band vanity. Leithp July 7, 2005 07:29 (UTC)

• Delete as above TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)
• Delete: WP Music failure. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, band vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
• Delete, then vote at wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C --Carnildo 7 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. And the Mat Vicious page never got deleted as it should have been. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:19 (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 — Gwalla | Talk 01:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

RC-293

Delete Unsourced, possible hoax. the image is not this gas, but nazi poison gas.Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 7, 2005 07:30 (UTC)

• Delete barring verification. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
• Delete: Can't verify. Images are of Zyklon-B, the Nazi gas chamber stuff. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing on google. [6] Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Klonimus 8 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) — Gwalla | Talk 01:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Carlos Machado

Non-notable. Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)
• Delete: NN —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable —36invisible 8 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
• Keep may be notable for some people, see [7]. KissL 08:30, 12 July 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.

This page is blank.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

• Weak Keep, notable job, but not noteable known. DCUnitedFan2011 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Article was on list of articles to be wikified. I have verified that the content has been merged. So, Simon Quinlank is now a REDIRECT to Fist of Fun --- Quinobi 06:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)