Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 20

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gazpacho (talk | contribs) at 02:26, 20 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Guide to Votes for Deletion

Purge server cache

August 20

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 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dot Pilot

Dicdef with no hope of further expansion. Denni☯ 00:19, 2005 August 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherwood Online

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Francs2000 | Talk 00:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Quotes now fixed)
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 06:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Christy747 07:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. The Examiner is allowed so why not this? -- RHaworth 17:05:41, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V.—Encephalon | ζ  17:54:53, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
    • Why do you consider this unverifyable? An external link is given. -- RHaworth 12:07:54, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
      • I do not, RHaworth; you are quite right to point out that the existence of Leatherwood Online does seem to be verifiable. However, simply because the existence of something is verifiable does not mean it deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. The concept of notability is often used to determine "encyclopedia-worthiness" on WP; as you can see from the WP:N page, this concept as understood on WP derives a lot from WP:V. Something, such as a newspaper, that is truly notable will likely have multiple secondary sources which an editor wishing to write a scholarly article on the subject may reference. No secondary sources, or a small number of poor quality ones, is a very strong indicator of non-notability. This is not a trivial point, for it lies at the heart of what we all do (or are trying to do) at WP: write articles for an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia article cannot be written without good secondary sources (and at WP that is an absolute requirement, for primary research is forbidden). Let's take an example. If you wanted to write an article on the New York Times, you will have at your disposal thousands of secondary sources of all kinds, including best-selling books, scholarly articles, monographs, journalism and media studies dissertations, documentaries, editorial commentary, even websites. The Times is a highly notable subject that has been the focus of an immense amount of primary research; hence the great number of secondary sources. Now, I've used the Times as a particularly clear example of a notable newspaper, and do not mean to suggest that every article we write must have an equally prodigious number of sources; however, the requirement for at least some good, reputable sources is clear. What are the secondary sources one may use to write an article on Leatherwood Online?—Encephalon | ζ  15:10:08, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Keep - Stoph 00:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dottore So 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Print publications are notable, that should rub off on their online spin-offs. --DrTorstenHenning 13:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or failing that merge into Leatherwood, which however does not exist. -- Visviva 05:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Saucy

vanity, not encyclopedic Wyss 00:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Rhiannon

Nothing but a copvio on a nonexistant page about a big-breasted whore who considers herself a living incarnate vampire sent here to destroy Earth. Freak. CyborgOrder 01:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how can you have a copyvio of a nonexistent page? Grutness...wha? 01:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The link in the copyvio template is working. Not quite sure what the nominator meant by that. - Thatdog 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with ADHD

Delete, I suppose this qualifies as original research, or at least is highly interpretive. I'll admit in advance to possible ignorance: maybe these characters have been fictionally diagnosed with ADHD, but I'm sceptical. -Splash 01:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15c

Promo, not encyclopedic Wyss 01:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by another admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad0

Delete judging from the Google hits, Ad0 is the moniker of someone who did some hacking once. Nn.-Splash 01:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End VFD. page was apparently speedy deleted - Stoph 00:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn White

Vanity, seems to have been created by the subject of the article Wyss 01:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok by me to keep it, but creating one's own bio on WP violates policy. Technically, it should be deleted until someone else thinks enough of this individual to create an article about him. Wyss 03:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy that requires deletion of autobiography. The strictest WP:AUTO gets is to warn that an autobiographical article will probably be listed on VfD (where it is presumably debated on its own merits). Keep, notable, and slap the author's hand. — mendel ☎ 18:28, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I was referring to... Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see what Wikipedia is not). (but as I said, that's the only reason I nominated it... ) Wyss 05:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myle

This isnt' an article about "Myle" (¿?) but just reposting of Rktect's already deleted content content all over again. See [1] and [2] for evidence. Delete -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep on grounds of False accusation. This page shows the history of the Myle, as it existed prior to the statute Mile with reference to earlier examples of the Greek Milion and Roman Milliare and the revisions to the Milion and Milliare that made it something similar to its predecessors but also different from its descendant the Mile. Unsigned vote by Rktect at 02:29 22 August 2005
  • By the way Rktect is removing Vfd Notices in order to hide them. [3] -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Second False accusation. see below -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
      • Probably the result of an edit conflict, due to someone adding the original {{vfd}} tag while he was in the middle of adding in all those (spurious?) references --Mysidia (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In other words some of you are in such a hurry to delete pages you can't wait for them to be put up before you mark them for deletion -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
        • As a separate and related point all of these pages are being edited with references content and wikification being added, but then reverted by the people voting against them (Egil, Ken, Gene, Drini and Zoe) to fraudulently give the impression that they are insubstantial. Egil was supposedly to have been constrained from changing them because we entered into mediation on this issue but he has contacted, Ken, Gene and Drini among others to ask them to act as his agents in deleting and reverting these pages. -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
The previous are misleading and unsubstantiated claims, as I was never contacted with Egil before my vote casting. I wasn't aware of a mediation existing until Egil dropped me a single message on my talk page long after this controversy had started. -- < drini | ∂drini > 17:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently Rktect has decided to put everything he "knows" into every article he edits, and because those changes are generally reverted on the grounds of relevance, comprehensibility, a deliberate disregard of all the rules of editing, dishonest use of minor edit tag, and various other reasons, to create a few new ones of the same thing just for good measure. Gene Nygaard 02:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gene has systematically removed content, wikification and references from pages, Egil and Ken have marked 27 for deletion since August 5 and Ken is engaged in marking them in groups of up to four at a time so individual pages can't be voted on separately. -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
  • Delete. There may be some content worth moving into the historical section of Mile, when that article is unprotected (which I don't recommend until this battle has played out in RFC or arbitration (wherever it finally winds up, as I fear it must inevitably do). Of particular interest to me is the 1593 date, when Queen Elizabeth I of England changed the definition of the foot, and added a number of feet to the mile so that it would remain the same absolute size. (Which is what my quick research into the statutes says actually happened. The redefinition of the mile was incidental.) And there may be other content that's worth moving into an article on something like the topic of Pseudoscientific metrology. (Which is a title I hate, BTW.) I don't see any of those moves happening anytime soon, though, and the content is unencyclopedic as presented.
    Myle, by the way, is an archaic spelling of mile. I see nothing to indicate that it was a separate word used for a separate measure. Ken talk|contribs 22:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe that would be a good thing to check out before establishing a POV Ken.Rktect 02:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, good Lord. I went to the library and checked OED before I wrote that. Is that a good enough reference for you? If I say "I see no evidence..." or "I see nothing to indicate..." it means that I checked, usually multiple sources. Ken talk|contribs 03:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If I'm going to be accused of being a member of a cabal, I might as well vote with the rest of the cabal. Delete, more of Rktect's incomprehensible original research. Zoe 23:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • As a group of vandals you are all coming along nicely and probably deserve your own page to give you the credit you deserve for all this good work you have been doing. You could call yourselves the Super Ekgdz wear lots of lyca and strike fear into the hearts of pseudo villians everywhere. Rktect 23:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Drini puts a possible copywrite image tag on an image that has written permission to use it on its main Wikipedia image page Rktect 23:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • In what possible way does that comment have anything to do with this VfD vote? Zoe 20:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, let's see. We have Egil, Ken, Gene, Drini and Zoe working together to destroy Wikipedia content in any way possible, making patently false allegations of original research and throwing around unsubstantiated lables of pseudo science, marking dozens of pages for deletion, then systematically stripping them of their content, removing images, references, tables, repeatedly reverting them to earlier versions so that what is voted on is never the best or latest version of a page, and misusing administrative powers to mark as copywrite infringements quotions from free source sites, or images already registered with wikipedia with written permission for their use. I know that might be standard operating procedure here but that doesn't make it right.Rktect 02:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Although the previous paragraph has nothing to do with the vfd process I want to add a comment (I've post this on some other pages but you keep spreading misinformation):
I'm not an admin. Any user can add copyright notice tags into nonfree resources. No administrative powers being misused. *Once again* Please check your facts before making unsubstantiated claims. And as I've told you before [4]:
If you refer to [5] then the copyvio is not a false statement. It's taken from [6] where it states:
Copyright Screen prints may be made of these maps for non-commercial educational and private purposes. Written permission must be obtained in advance to reproduce any digital material from the Library's collections, whether in hard copy or electronic forms.
Obtaining written permission is not fulfilled with copying and pasting that paragraph. It means you need to provide a real paper permission form. And second, after the ruling of Jimbo a few months ago, free for noncommercial and educational is not free enough for wikipedia. Read [7] where it clearly states that noncommercial and "with permission only" MUST be deleted in sight. And you are now also claiming the image is registered with wikipedia which is a nonsense. I won't comment further on that. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A'Marie

Delete since WP:ISNOT a genealogy, nor should it be a list of names. -Splash 01:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin stodola

Vanity, unencyclopedic, copyvio Wyss 01:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milliare

This isnt' an article about "Milliare" (¿?) but just reposting of Rktect's original research and already deleted content content all over again. See [1] and [2] for evidence. Delete -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aamu (name)

Delete, a foreign namedef — we don't collect meanings of names. Is there a viable transwiki? -Splash 01:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slipple

Delete faintly amusing neologism (collects about 200 Googles, but few if any are relevant). No redirect since we don't retain redirects for invented words. -Splash 01:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Fan Blog

Blog ad Wyss 01:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Child Abuse in Government Schools

Delete, patently original research. This isn't a hoax, it's [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36326 here] but it shouldn't be here. -Splash 01:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scars (song)

Contains lyrics only, nothing beyond them to indicate why it might be encyclopedic Rx StrangeLove 01:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HCASC

nn fan club ad Wyss 01:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XMLambda

A proposal that, as far as I can tell, was not implemented and was not developed further.

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 09:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't exist. Go away.

Non-notable error message. For comparison, we do not have You are not expected to understand this

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_20&oldid=21406161"