Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] April 21

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quel

Quel is a junior at a high school. Vanity page.

  • Delete. - Stoph 00:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity --Durin 00:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, dear. He likes Eminem and Michael Jackson? Vanity, thy name is Quel. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Quelete. <Butt-head>Huh huh, he said gamecock.</Butt-head> Vanity of the highest order. android↔talk 02:15, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though this guy is "mutli-talented."-LtNOWIS 02:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, it turns out he is a junior at college. - Stoph 03:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal homepage article. -Husnock 04:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity. Mo0[talk] 06:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, lame, sad, and stupid. Linuxbeak 14:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Vanity. - Longhair | Talk 11:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quelcruft. -- 8^D gab 20:46, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Deleted! BlackberryLaw 22:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)BlackberryLaw
    • Comment. The page has not actually been deleted yet. - Stoph 03:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE

[edit] List of animals

delete. Also, wikispecies is for such things. There are thousands of animals, many on several continents. Hardly we can put them into a list. Mikkalai 00:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Also redundant to Category:Animals. —Korath (Talk) 01:02, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As mentioned above, we already have a list of them. Mo0[talk] 06:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See User:Mikkalai. Optimusnauta 06:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, impossible to maintain or keep reasonable complete. 131.211.210.12 08:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, forgot to sign in. Above vote is mine. Mgm|(talk) 08:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant. -- 8^D gab 13:37, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Deleted!, terrible. BlackberryLaw 22:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)BlackberryLaw
  • Delete. No bearing, but I noticed that polar bears are listed under Antarctica. :D -AndromedaRoach 04:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE

[edit] Akinrinola

Delete: Non-encyclopedic, hate based addition --Durin 00:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Personal attack; besides, I'm sure the poster has already shown all his little friends, and they've had a good laugh over it, so it's served all the purpose it ever will on this site. I wonder if the poster realizes that anyone in the world (including the subject of the article) can find his IP address in the page history, tho? Eh, probably did it from school. Kids these days. -- 8^D gab 01:33, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Speedy under criterion A1. (I thought there was a criterion specifically for attack pages; I guess not.) I'll tag it. android↔talk 02:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE

[edit] Xplosive hosting

Delete: Advertising. --Durin 00:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under A1. Doesn't even give a specific definition of that company in particular. Mgm|(talk) 08:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete tag added. -Casito⇝Talk 08:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted. Concur with Mgm. SWAdair | Talk 10:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick blye

One-para. biography of non-notable college student. Delete -- Dcfleck 02:29, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

  • Delete - I concur. And do I detect a whiff of personal attack concerning "odd shape" and fruitiness? FreplySpang (talk) 04:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. I gave the article's creator a chance to change the article by marking it {{explain-significance}} [1] and posting a message on xyr's talk page. But xe did not listen. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible personal attack. Megan1967 05:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the same resons as Megan1967 -Casito⇝Talk 08:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blyecruft. -- 8^D gab 20:54, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technophoria

Delete as neologism, dicdef at best. It gets a number of Google hits but there does not seem to be a shared meaning. And none of them are the one given in the article as it now stands.FreplySpang (talk) 02:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism. Rossami (talk) 17:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wictionary and list as slang. One of the great strengths of the wiki is we can keep up with neologisms. If the term exists, even among a few, the wiki project should attempt to list an objective definition for it. - Pioneer-12 13:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no problem with slang if it gains signficant use, but this doesn't seem well-established enough even for Wiktionary. RussBlau 19:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of people on stamps of Kionga

A very trivial list. – (Isaac Rabinovitch forgot to sign.)

NB Nominator has voted keep below Kappa 21:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a tough one. There are a lot of Lists of people on stamps of X articles (leaving aside the utility of such lists for the moment) but lists generally ought to have more than one item, and Kionga no longer exists. Kionga Triangle already has a section devoted to stamps. I'd say merge into List of people on stamps of Portugal, since it was a Portuguese colony at the time of the lone stamp's issuance, but that article doesn't exist. Perhaps Move to that article, note that the stamp was issued for the colony, and hope that some stamp-obsessed folks add to it? Does this belong in Kionga Triangle as well? Yikes. android↔talk 03:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, now somebody has to explain why so many useless lists have been added without anybody challenging them. How is the fact that Congo once put Albrecht Dürer on a stamp encyclopedic? If we can support this level of trivia for numismatists, why are we giving the Micronationoids such a hard time? ---Isaac R 03:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial list. Megan1967 05:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, strongly themed lists of famous people are encyclopedic. Kappa 05:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge somewhere but keep similar but longer lists, or merge them somewhere if they are ridiculously short. A lot of people are interested in philately, so I think it is a legitimate topic, and the lists also have some significance in establishing the notability of persons. There is nothing less encyclopedic in this topic than in, for instance, listing recipients of important awards. The shorter of these lists could be merged with overview articles on the philately of each country, but they don't really do much harm. Tupsharru 05:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Widespread interest in philately justifies informative articles on philatelatic topics. It does not justify endless collections of stamp-related trivia. ---Isaac R 05:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • List of people on stamps of the United Kingdom or List of people on stamps of the United States are very interesting and not at all trivial. Lists like these tell us a lot about the values prevalent in a society or propagated by a certain state. In contrast, a List of stamps by perforation might be useful to stamp collectors but would probably be trivial to everyone else. (The production process leading to different perforations may be interesting enough for a general article, but I wouldn't bet on it.) Tupsharru 06:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Both the pages you mention have some interesting prose -- but what's interesting about a long list of names? The US list has over a thousand names on it! No sane person, not even a hardcore philatelist, is going to sit down and read that. Which makes it an accumulation of stamp-related trivia, not an encyclopedia article.---Isaac R 20:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Lists are indexes, not articles to "sit down and read" - propose deleting all the lists in WP and see how far you get! These lists serve several purposes - "is Bing Crosby on a US stamp?" (yes, in 1994); "who is Percy Crosby, and what did he do to be stampworthy?"; they are a reminder that each person's bio should consider mentioning stamp appearance, and philatelists use lists like these to find a stamp in catalogs when they don't remember its year of issue (which happens a lot). In any case, I invite further discussion at the usually-quiet Talk:List of people on stamps. Stan 23:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into list of people on stamps of Portuguese colonies, which was my original intent, making the individual colony lists redirect. See List of people on stamps of Australia for an example of handling for all the predecessor states. (New user User:JPPINTO is enthusiastic but apparently impervious to my advice.) As to triviality, I'll point out that a) the original list is of very long standing, dating from May 2002, and b) the motivation was not just philatelic, but also based on the observation that people honored on a country's stamps are generally significant to that country's history in some way; the large number of red links in, for instance, List of people on stamps of Colombia is a hint that people need to spend less time on VfD and more time filling in the gaping holes in our Colombia coverage. 1/2 :-) Stan 06:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe the "large number of red links" means that nobody really cares about the topic and it should go away. -- Dcfleck 11:44, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
      • No, it just means that our contributors are far too US/Europe-centric. We have every two-bit politician in the US and obscure football clubs in the UK, but not the leading figures of Colombian history, or of many other countries of the world. It's sad that some people think this is desirable. Stan 19:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this and other stamp lists. Could be a useful reference for stamp collectors. N-Mantalk 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of people on stamps of Portugal, in the same way that List of people on stamps of Australia handles predecessor states. We don't need single-item list articles. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Kionga Triangle and redirect. Though normally I agree that lists should be kept, there is no such thing as a list of one. RickK 19:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Assuming that the list of countries exist and everybody can contribute, I don't understand why such discussion about this page.This page is no diferent from the Oltre Giuba list which is on Wikipedia a long ago.If it is trivial is because Kionga issued only 4 stamps with the same figure. With this I can do nothing more then list the content of the country in the same principals of other existing lists.And sometimes what is trivial for someone is important for another one.As for merge this list on Portuguese colonies category in the same way of Australia, I don't see any logical reason for that.French colonies and British colonies are listed separately.Why not the same for Portuguese colonies?Are they different from the others?Most of French ,British and Portuguese colonies are now independent countries.Should them be listed under the colonizer country list?The context of Kionga Triangle page is quite different from this lists.Is it correct to mix different contexts just because a single "trivial" line on a page? (JPPINTO)
  • Merge until (whenever) it's long enough for its own. Short lists do not make for easy finding of information. Radiant_* 14:51, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, I'm the guy who nominated the VfD in the first place. I still don't agree that Wikipedia should have hundreds of lists of stamps as articles. But the consensus is clearly against me on that point. And if we're going to have all these stamp lists, there's no reason Kionga shouldn't have a list too, just because it's a forgotten German colony that only issued one stamp. There's no reason not to have a list with one entry, even if it looks strange. And Kionga was a unique entity, so merging its list elsewhere makes no sense. --Isaac R 23:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kionga Triangle. Topic is already covered there in greater detail, including a pic. Niteowlneils 00:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (votes 9K7D). - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong Geographical Association

Appears to be a professional organization with 100 members - I think this falls under the bar of notability. Delete. -- 8^D gab 03:11, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

  • Verifiable organisation with verifiable membership that publishes a verifiable printed periodical. Keep.--Gene_poole 03:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has potential to expand into a longer article and link to many other subjects -Husnock 04:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Hong Kong Geographic.Klonimus 06:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Verifiability is distinct from notability. Delete, no notability established (what has it done that's notable)? Slac speak up! 14:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I can FAX you a copy of my birth certificate. That verifies that I exist. Does that mean I should have an article? As Slac says, verifiability is not notability. Delete. RickK 19:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you're important enough for someone unrelated to you to write about then you're important enough to keep. As you well know notability is irrelevant to this and every other deletion discussion as it is not part of Wikipedia's deletion policy. --Gene_poole 23:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Radiant_* 10:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After reading the article and the ext.linked webpage, I can't find anything that warrants this having an article. --NormanEinstein 14:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this article is not interesting to you, then don't read it. --Zero 15:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with you people?? This is a serious longstanding academic organization that publishes a prominent peer-reviewed geography journal. Of course it deserves an article. --Zero 10:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing wrong with this article. --Hunter 10:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. With an organization like this, it should be expanded a bit. Plus, Hong Kong is a tiny place (geographically) so they probably only need 100 members to get the job done. Zscout370 15:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the person proposing it is just jealous because he only has one member. SchmuckyTheCat 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep appears to be well connected and authoritive organisation Andypasto 08:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zero. Kappa 21:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE

[edit] Tupac_poetry

Article contains no information, context, or attribution

  • Delete ecb29 April 20, 2005
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Marked for Speedy Delete.-Casito⇝Talk 08:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted. Nothing but copyrighted lyrics. SWAdair | Talk 10:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE

[edit] Pachsegink lodge

Delete or Merge this is an entry on an individual Boy Scout Lodge. The lodge does not appear to be noteworthy. Perhaps it should be merged with an article on the Boy Scout council that administers the lodge? Ganymead 03:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 05:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable enough even to be merged Andypasto 08:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Order of the Arrow. By the way, it's not a "Boy Scout Lodge;" it's an Order of the Arrow lodge. Boy Scouts are grouped into councils, not lodges. --Myles Long 16:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, before anyone calls me stupid, I do realize that Order of the Arrow is a Boy Scout group. It's still not correct to refer to a "Boy Scout Lodge," though. --Myles Long 16:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. notability. Mikkalai 19:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Spinboy 18:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calum Marsh

Vanity, non-notable. Fails the pokemon test. Delete. --Spinboy 03:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment"Calum Marsh" gets about 82 Google hits, but only from 9 pages, the rest being omitted results from similar pages. He appears to be a real guy, who's made real films. Anyone in Canada able to shed light on this?-LtNOWIS 05:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 05:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I attend Carleton University, and Calum Marsh is a considerably well-known director here. His film just premiered at our film festival a few weeks ago. I think he's also a writer or something too for the newspaper.
  • Do Not Delete, established enough to justify notation. He is notably well-known in Ontario.
    • Comment was left by 134.117.185.17. --Spinboy 05:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Not notable. Would like to get input from a Canadian, though. -Casito⇝User talk:CasitoTalk 05:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am Canadian, and I've never heard of him. --Spinboy 05:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am a Canadian, and I'm familiar with the director and his films. --JohnMarkham 01:59, 21 Apr 2005 (EST)
    • I also live in Ottawa, and I don't attend Carleton University. The people who created or worked on thie article seem to be CU students, if not Calum himself. --Spinboy 06:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Karl Dietz I'm in Ottawa, I've heard of Marsh. I think he's doing some filming in our part of town next (the "Nepean")Do not delete
    • That was from User:Karl dietz. --Spinboy 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Karl, did you already vote as the numbered user up there? --Spinboy 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete: I attend Ottawa University and have heard of both this director and his most recent film. --Flabergasted 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I attend Carleton, and have never heard of him. Don't know if that's reason enough to delete him. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I notice how many new users are suddenly voting on this. I cannot help but wonder how many of them are the same person. --Spinboy 06:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers You may enjoy this Spinboy.
    • That's from User:Ottawa99. And I've read it. I'm still allowed my opinion that the same person is voting here under different names. --Spinboy 06:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I assumed that you had read it; but there is no need to be so suspicious in such a simple process of voting. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that you have several other accounts which you are using to vote against this, but no respectful person would make such an aligation. Ottawa99 06:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, I'm pretty sure that I exist. Maybe I should check again? Johnmarkham 06:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Xezbeth 06:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Guess what? This was all a less-than-elaborate joke. Hope you had fun wasting your time discussing it you friggin' nerds. So go ahead and delete it and ban this account and all of the others because it's all a sham. Calum Marsh is the figment of your imagination and does not exist. The Charlatan is a fake paper and he never wrote for it. Those articles on the site? Oh those are all fake. And the five films the non-existent Calum made? Yeah those are made up. Those screenshots are photoshopped stills from The Passion Of The Christ.

Goodnight ya morons! Johnmarkham 06:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • Weather he exists or not isn't being debated. He hasn't done anything worth being included in an encyclopedia. And please no personal attacks. --Spinboy 07:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I happen to know the Charlatan exists ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • He managed to get nerds to discuss it all night, I'd say that's noteworthy Johnmarkham 07:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • We're not nerds, and that's not notable. Please stop attacking us. --Spinboy 07:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability established. Showing a film at a student festival just doesn't clear the bar for me. He's only nineteen—he's still got lots of time to make his mark. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. hoax and sockpuppetcruft. RickK 19:48, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing from a Google search comes back as anything noteworthy. Saopaulo1 21:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Marsh may not have done anything "notworthy" by your standards, but have you? If we google you, would anything other than "wikipedia posting addict" appear? He had done alot, i'm from south of toronto and i've heard of Marsh. I've actually seen a film, so hows the for notable. If he has his film playing basially at different ends of the province, i think thats something. He's ran them at film fextivals, just because they are world renouned ones doesnt mean they arnt something. everyone has to start somewhere and he is notable for doing so. Also, dont you think he deserves something for getting all this talk about him by everyone here? He is far more notable than you,and until you can prove you've done something remotely close to his success, why woulud you care so much if he's deleted?--sades1313 01:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of us haven't done anything notable, and there isn't an article on us in Wikipedia either. --Spinboy 01:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Jayjg (talk) 06:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: First of all the article isn't verry notable, second of all the user uses Sock Puppets to defend the article (Notice how a majority of them use "Do not delete" instead of "Keep" when voting) third of all the user resorts to making lame personal attacks (claiming we are "Nerds" and "Not Notable") also in one he claims that he made the whole thing up (which I doubt is true but still...)Deathawk 22:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The fact the anons aren't even using correct VfD terminology says it all. Hedley 22:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Speedy delete as hoax. Hedley 22:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] List of the Great Boners of all time (now List of incidents famously considered great blunders)

This discussion has become very long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 17:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:13, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Fisher (computer scientist)

Delete as remarkably well-formatted page about non-encyclopedic university student. (The article mentions his participation in ACSL, which is a competition for univ. students.) Maybe vanity, maybe a tribute by a friend. FreplySpang (talk) 04:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Just another non-notable, non-encyclopedic university student. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, I think ACSL is a high school competition. (vote by 68.174.153.6)
  • Delete, ways to go yet. Gazpacho 09:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • SPEEDY delete and block user. He blanked this page and added another nonsense vanity article. - Lucky 6.9 00:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Students, eh? Wooo Rusty!--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I SWEAR I saw somewhere this before, as Lucky 6.9 said. Linuxbeak 22:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Swann

Not notable. Article is perhaps even vanity. I can't find anything about him. Posted by Casito

  • He has become quite well known as part of an emergent sub-culture. Certainly the magazine for which he writes exists, and they mention him on their site. He was on the radio last week being interviewed about TV turn off week. He's been on quite a lot of radio recently, in fact and I've read some of his more serious political stuff in a number of magazine.

I'd vote for it to stay, perhaps without the quotes though, that seems like a bit of preaching on the part of the poster. Posted by User:dandyfop

  • Delete, notability not established, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No third party sources, thus seems not notable and vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Some of the article is absurd, but Googling on "Michael Molyneux Swann" reveals that he does exist and does write for The Chap Magazine. FreplySpang (talk) 05:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 07:39, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Existence is not the same thing as notability. RickK 19:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Overlong, often not encyclopedic in style, contains unverifiable claims. Anything that would be kept would require citations. Average Earthman 22:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a... um... oh forget it, vote as above. Master Thief Garrett 21:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which will be implemented once compression block errors have been resolved. Postdlf 01:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making Charles' law tubes

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making Charles law tubes

  • Was a redirect to Making Charles' law tubes. Orphan, now not required. -- Egil 05:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since this is a red link, shouldn't this go away? ^_^ (I don't know how to do that, I'm worried I'd mess VfD up!) Mo0[talk] 06:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 01:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apparatus for demonstrating osmosis

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 01:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bell jar model lung

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graticule slides

  • Content moved to Wikibooks, illustration moved to commons, and the previous Graticule slide redirect now contains the encyclopedic content. -- Egil 05:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, since it's been transwikied already. Mo0[talk] 06:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Graticule slide. Megan1967 07:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Content has been merged to graticule slide. Finish the merger with Redirect (which would be a good idea per the naming conventions anyway), therefore. Uncle G 16:00, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Master Thief Garrett 21:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (pending). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simple switches

Moved to Wikibooks. Links fixed, and images transferred. -- Egil 07:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cell holder

Moved to Wikibooks. Links fixed, and images transferred. -- Egil 07:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which will be implemented as soon as the planets are in the right alignment. Postdlf 02:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bulb holder

Moved to Wikibooks. Links fixed. There were no images to transfer. -- Egil 07:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School biology experiments and demonstrations

Transwiki to Wikibooks, and merged with existing wikibook wikibooks:Constructing school science lab equipment (probably with a new wikibook title). Many of the articles listed should be moved to. -- Egil 04:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School chemistry experiments and demonstrations

Tranwiki to Wikibooks, and merged with existing wikibook wikibooks:Constructing school science lab equipment (probably with a new wikibook title). Along with (probably) all the articles listed. -- Egil 07:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School physics experiments and demonstrations

Tranwiki to Wikibooks, and merged with existing wikibook wikibooks:Constructing school science lab equipment (probably with a new wikibook title). Along with (probably) all the articles listed. -- Egil 07:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hydraulics demonstration

Transwiki to Wikibooks, as mentioned above. Images are already on the commons. -- Egil 08:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Osmosis demonstration

Transwiki to Wikibooks School biology experiments and demonstrations -- Egil 04:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Word for library in various languages

  • Delete. Content was moved to Wiktionary and replaced with an external link to the article there. Not needed. Not the best article title, either. android↔talk 05:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, since it's already been transwikied. Mo0[talk] 06:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • TheVenerableBede is the creator and (apart from the VFD notice) sole editor of this page. Xe apparently discovered Wiktionary and the better way of doing this on 2005-03-14. There's a whole slew of edits from a set of related IP addresses, adding a mass of translations to Wiktionary:library, on that date; and TheVenerableBede blanked and attempted to turn this article into an interwiki redirect to that article, not realizing that interwiki redirects have been disabled for the moment, at the same time. Content blanked by author and sole editor with the clear indication that the article was a mistake. Speedy delete. Uncle G 14:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. --Spinboy 06:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montréal Expos and Montreal Expos

This team has moved to Washington, D.C. and is now known as the Washington Nationals. As has been pointed out on the talk page, it is the same franchise. The Washington Nationals article discusses the complete history of the franchise, including its days in Montreal. Hence, this separate page is redundant. Also, other franchises that have moved only have one page (e.g., Brooklyn Dodgers --> Los Angeles Dodgers and Seattle Pilots --> Milwaukee Brewers and St. Louis Browns --> Baltimore Orioles. All redirect to the team's current name. This page, as well as Montreal Expos, should redirect to Washington Nationals. All relevant information is already included there, so there is no need to merge.--Canoeguy81 05:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This borders on silly. The teams are entirely distinct, and the histories of the two teams will be entirely divergent. Fans of the former team are not fans of the new team, and fans of the new team don't care about or likely know much about the history of the old team. One team died and the other inherited its players (not its name or logo or mascot or anything else), that's all. The LA Dodgers kept the same name and had the same owner, there's a certain sense of continuity, a sense that the Brooklyn Dodgers history is part of the LA Dodgers history. There is no such continuity here, the Nationals are starting fresh, in every aspect except their starting lineup they are effectively an expansion franchise. -- Curps 05:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Do your research more closely. The franchise chose to change its name. Franchises sometimes change their names (Browns to Orioles, Senators to Twins) and sometimes they don't (Lakers, Jazz, Dodgers). The Nats could have kept their name, their logo, their mascot...those were business decisions. The Nats are not starting fresh. They use the same spring training facility, they take the same history of statistics, and the same retired numbers (Carter, Dawson, Staub). The same contracts are continued. Kingturtle 17:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • There are separate articles for the Washington Senators and the Minnesota Twins. Even though they're the same franchise, the Twins have a distinct history from the Senators, especially nearly half a century after the move. Iceberg3k 19:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
        • The only reason there is a Washington Senators article is because there were two MLB teams called that. The page is a disamb page. Kingturtle 20:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • the same people own the nats right now who owned expos last season mlb. a certain sense of continuity how about the same manager gm and players, spring training location.Smith03 20:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Teams that move cities and change names are effecively different. Consider the Cleveland Browns. They moved to Baltimore, became the Ravens, and a few years later a NEW franchise called the Browns was put in place in Cleveland as a CONTINUATION of the old franchise. We need to keep articles like this. &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsptalk! 06:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Foodmarket, that is technically not true. Yes, the Cleveland Browns and the Baltimore Ravens have separate articles, but only because the NFL considers them two different teams. But Houston Oilers redirects to Tennessee Titans because the league considers it the same franchise with the same history. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • When the Browns expansion franchise was created, a significant part of the agreement was that the NFL would take the unprecedented step of reverting the Cleveland history of the former franchise to the new team; previously, records of all franchises went with them when a team relocated. The Cleveland Browns have to be regarded as a departure from the norm in this case. MisfitToys 20:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Just because we have the franchise now (I live near DC) doesn't mean we can completely ignore the fact that the team had a home in Montral for a long time. Mo0[talk] 06:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems we have conflicting policies regarding this issue regarding teams who move to a different city and change their name. As I stated above, the Houston Oilers redirects to Tennessee Titans because the league considers it the same franchise with the same history. Buffalo Braves redirects to Los Angeles Clippers because it is the same NBA team. But for NHL teams, Québec Nordiques and Colorado Avalanche are on separate articles, and Winnipeg Jets and Phoenix Coyotes are separated too. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The people doing the hockey pages are doing it wrong. I will be discussing with them the idea of changing those articles to redirects. Kingturtle 07:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • These discussions would be futile. Official NHL sources split their franchises to individual teams, with a separate section on the Dallas Stars and the Minnesota North Stars (the major exception is the Seals). Even official NBA sources (last time I checked) do the same. To not do the same in Wikipedia is ludicrous. kelvSYC 03:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Better check your sources more closely. For example, in the Warriors' media guide they list Wilt Chamberlain as holding the team record for points in a game, even though he did it when the team called Philadelphia home. Kingturtle 04:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Records and statistics, maybe. Team histories, which are more important in Wikipedia, no. kelvSYC 01:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, shouldn't this issue be confined to the article's talk page instead of here on VfD? Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • This has already been discussed on the talk page, and the result of the debate seemed to be in favor of moving everything to Washington Nationals. That change was made, then reverted by an edit, made again, and reverted again. That's why it's on a vfd.--Canoeguy81 07:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Washington Nationals article was edited to remove all Montreal Expos history AFTER this vfd was posted. Also, if the result of this debate is a keep, should the histories of the two Washington Senators franchises be moved from their current locations (Texas Rangers and Minnesota Twins) and included with the Washington Nationals?--Canoeguy81 07:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I should also point out that Major League Baseball's official site recognizes that the Expos and the Nationals are the same franchise and lists Expos records and history under the Nationals' website.--Canoeguy81 08:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT to Washington Nationals. They are the same franchise. Kingturtle 07:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Since nobody seems to think these should be deleted (but rather made redirects or kept, what is this doing here?--Samuel J. Howard 09:12, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since it was nominated in good faith, but consensus says to keep. So let's keep it. Radiant_* 10:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that you are voting to KEEP simply because that's what others are doing? Kingturtle 17:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - separate the articles and provide links, i.e, the Expos' article ends with reference to the Nats, and the Nats' articles begins with reference to the 'Spos. There is enough material for two articles, so let's keep it that way. Ground Zero 14:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with GrounD Zero, that is exactly how it should be handled ---FoodMarket talk! 15:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact that there's enough material for two articles is immaterial; there's enough material for several articles on the Braves franchise, but the appropriate way to handle that is to have a main article (Atlanta Braves) and have that article link to articles on different aspects of the franchise's history – NOT to have separate articles for the Boston Braves and Milwaukee Braves. The same is true here. MisfitToys 20:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly notable. They weren't a one-season team like the Seattle Pilots. To the contrary, they were in Montréal for over three decades, and the fiasco with being owned by MLB, the John Henry / Jeff Loria switch, gutting the team of veteran talent during their last 5-10 years in Montréal, and playing a lot of "home" games in Puerto Rico (thousands of miles away from their home park) certainly makes this worthy of a keep. Go Nats, but remember the Expos too. --Idont Havaname 15:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The franchise is the same. For other examples, please see this article's TALK page. Kingturtle 17:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Definitely notable. Definitely distinct from the new team. GrantNeufeld 15:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The Nats are not a different team from the Expos. It is the same franchise. Kingturtle 17:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Team and franchise are two different concepts. You can move the management, you can move the players, you can even move the "franchise", but you can't move the team. The entity that was the Expos was based in Montreal. Now everything that made the Expos a team is gone, and the governing franchise decided to open another operation down south in Washington. Same franchise, new team. - Pioneer-12 18:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Definitely notable. Definitely distinct from the new team. --Spinboy 16:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not distinct from the new team. they are the same team - just under a new name. please see the long list of examples in this TALK page.
  • I just feel bad for the kid who goes to Montreal Expos, gets redirected to Nats page (if you we do decide to redir, which i do NOT recommend) and gets frustrated and turns to another source, even IF the info is somewhere in the Nats article. There needs to be a separate article ---FoodMarket talk! 17:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Foodmarket, you've expressed exactly what the issue is. Whether or not someone feels bad about it - that should not come into the equation here. We can't go pussy-footing around being afraid of how a reader might react. The fact is that the Montreal Expos franchise has moved the Washington....and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ examples I have listed in this TALK page. Kingturtle 21:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Do you think we should redirect dinosaurs to birds? Hey one became the other and the original doesn't exist anymore... ---FoodMarket talk! 23:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Kingturtle, we're building this encyclopedia for readers, and if they are annoyed or frustrated ("feel bad") or can't easily find what they're looking for, then we're failing. Of course that comes into the equation. -- Curps 23:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A redirect allows the reader to find what they are looking for. Kingturtle 23:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Not if they want only info on the Montreal Expos ---FoodMarket talk! 00:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Notable and should be seperate.
  • Comment The general rule in Wikipedia is to split off even closely related topics or subtopics when there's enough material for two articles. Thus, for instance, we have Italy and History of Italy and Geography of Italy, and Mars and Mars in fiction. So arguments that the Nationals and Expos ought to be considered the same franchise would be irrelevant even if they were true... Expos information should still be split off into its own article. There is enough material for two articles, and people looking for information about one will rarely be interested in the other. Technicalities aside, they are two distinct topics. -- Curps 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment For what it's worth, Soviet Union does not redirect to Russia even though Russia is considered the successor state to the Soviet Union (inheriting its United Nations Security Council seat, honoring its treaties and assuming its foreign debt, etc). -- Curps 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
True, but the Soviet Union didn't merely change its name. It's different country (actually several) with a new constitution. That's not the case here; there aren't separate articles for Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali, for instance. MisfitToys 20:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - maybe years from now when people have forgotten about the Expos, we can simply redirect it. To do so now would be extremely hasty, they are still seen as different teams, one defunct and one new. Adam Bishop 17:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Adam there is no defunct team. The Expos team moved to Washington and the nickname changed to Nationals. Kingturtle 17:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't the proper venue, because nobody wants an outright deletion. If the talk page is deadlocked, then next time post a Request for Comment. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I concur with TenOfAllTrades that vfd is not the place. (On such an rfc, I'd agree to keep independently for reasons provided by Curps, Ground Zero and others. (And how silly is it gonna look to have not only most of the article Washington Nationals about Montréal stuff, but to have to have it in both Category:Montreal sports and Category:Washington, DC sports? Oh, and maybe Category:Sports in Puerto Rico...) Samaritan 19:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I wouldn't advocate this if the case were sui generis, but the St. Louis Browns → Baltimore Orioles redirect seems a compelling precedent. Firebug 18:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and put all of the history back into the Washington Nationals article. These are not separate teams -- all of the team records are carried forward. The only exception to this is when the Cleveland Browns moved to Balitmore and became the Baltimore Ravens. The Browns' records were kept with the new Browns team, and not carried with the Ravens. RickK 19:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The point is moot. Even if you considered them to be the same team (and fans in both cities most certainly don't), there is ample precedent for splitting off sections of a too-large article into a separate page, even if they were on the same topic (or one is a sub-topic of the other). And how would you integrate the "Players of note" and "Retired numbers" sections of the two pages? Is Gary Carter in the hall of fame as a National now? Finally, is it helpful to Nationals fans to make them wade through an entire article's worth of material on the Expos in chronological order (which could be expanded even further) to get to material about the team they're actually interested in? It's simply a disservice to readers to merge these two distinct topics. -- Curps 20:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Interesting that you bring up Gary Carter. No Washington National can wear the number 8 (Gary Carter), 10 (Andre Dawson and Rusty Staub), because those numbers are retired, and it is still the same TEAM. Kingturtle 04:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • What do you mean the point is moot? You mean that it's a fait accompli and therefore we can't fix it? We then need to split the Brooklyn Dodgers out of the Los Angeles Dodgers, the New York Giants out of the San Francisco Giants, ad nauseum. This is a violation of established precedent. RickK 21:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • What I mean is simply that even if we accepted the argument that this was the same franchise or team, there would still be plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for splitting off the Montreal Expos history into its own article (Mars in fiction is split from Mars, etc) on grounds of length alone. In arguing over supposed precedents, I think you're losing sight of the core issue: what is the most helpful presentation for readers? In cases where fans of the new team have no interest in the history or traditions of the old team, readers looking for information about the new team will likewise very likely not be interested in (lengthy!) information about the old team (but if they want it, it's just a wikilink click away). -- Curps 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • There are no precedents of MLB team pages being split up in regards to franchise history. Quite the opposite, all former franchise teams redirect to the current MLB team in wikipedia. Kingturtle 17:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The franchise may carry the stats of the old team, but the Montreal Expos have a history distinct from the Washington Whatevers. --NormanEinstein 20:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Only redirect to the new team if the old team does not have enough info to have a standalone Wikipage, which is not the case with the Expos. Also, a page on the Washington team is unlikely to include things relevant to the French baseball culture in Montreal. -- PFHLai 20:18, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
    • Comment: When we have Wikipedians willing and ready to contribute content to have a standalone page for the old team the team before the move, we should let them have their own page about the old team the team before the move. The page of the the new team the team after the move should have a paragraph or a section about the team's history, which mentions the old team the team before the move. I don't see what's wrong with keeping the Expos page alive for this purpose. -- PFHLai 23:55, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It existed and had that history. If the history is needed for the new team, then a link back to here with a brief summary on the new page is the best way to handle it. Vegaswikian 21:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • you seem to misunderstand, the Washington Nationals are not a new team. They are an old team with a new location. Kingturtle 21:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • For all intents and purposes, apart from the technicality of how they acquired their starting lineup, they are a new team. And as argued above, the old team vs. new team debate is beside the point: the length issue alone would argue in favor of separate articles. Go to the History of Italy article: there are five separate sub-articles on History of Italy during Roman times, History of Italy during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, etc. etc. By length alone, we'd need a Washington Nationals during the Expos years article... so why not just call it Montreal Expos? -- Curps 22:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • They are NOT a new team. When a franchise moves, so with it moves its records. The Los Angeles Dodgers article lists the team's championships. The Sacramento Kings article lists the 1951 NBA Championship won when the team was in Rochester and called the Royals. Who is the all-time stolen base and all-time triples leader for the Baltimore Orioles franchise? George Sisler, who did it when the franchise was in St. Louis. Kingturtle 23:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A baseball franchise is much more than its players, coaches, and records. Much of the notability stems from its location and impact on local culture, as well. The fact that we don't have separate articles for most of these cases is a weakness. not a precedent. Since we have enough material it would be a crime to redirect in this case, IMO ---FoodMarket talk! 23:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article. Read Memphis Grizzlies and New Orleans Hornets to see how those articles deal with the Vacouver Grizzlies and the Charlotte Hornets. This is standard practice in Wikipedia. Kingturtle 01:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The Grizzlies had a terrible time in Vancouver, no one wants to write about that. With the lack of quality content, naturally the page will shrink and become a redirect. The Dodgers, the Giants and the Expos, on the other hand, each has a wonder story to tell. If someone wants to write a Wikipage, why not let them ? There is no reason to have a rigid policy and delete the Montréal Expos page. -- PFHLai 05:03, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • From the Washington Nationals article -- "Coincidentally, the last time a MLB team moved to a new city was in 1972, when the previous franchise to operate in the DC area, the Washington Senators, moved to Texas, becoming the Texas Rangers." So if we have separate articles for the _last MLB move_ why not now? ---FoodMarket talk!
    • That is a disamb page, which *I* did the major rewrite back when I was a rookie in Wikipedia. I didn't know how to make disamb pages correctly. :) let me make some adjustments. Kingturtle 01:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • what do you mean? that's right fron washington nationals isnt it? ---FoodMarket talk! 01:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no redirect - policy on team pages in other sports (eg. ice hockey, for which I am a WikiProject member) has it that ideally, each incarnation of a team has a separate article (there are, of course, other practical considerations). You lose too much information if you just redirect it all into the "newest team" article. kelvSYC 03:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nomination was to redirect, not to delete. If it's an easy redirect, be bold. If it's controversial, seek concensus on the respective article Talk pages, not here. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Different teams; "See alsos" work just fine. Jayjg (talk) 06:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and distinct. El_C 07:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Expos are not the Nationals. Simple as that. Distinct histories, distinct pages.--Michaelk 00:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why not have this debate in ten years. The Montreal Expos are still in the hearts and minds of many people; many of whom are deeply disappointed at the city's loss. This deletion serves no purpose other than to erase them from the pages of history. While we're at it, let's delete New Amsterdam (New York City) or let's just redirect thirteen colonies and British North America to United States. Hey, how about Abraham Lincoln redirected to George W. Bush?
    • Article names are not driven by emotions. As for Lincoln and Bush, they were two different people. The Expos and the Nationals are the same franchise. Kingturtle 19:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same franchise, but different location, different fans, different audience. I was a fan of the Baltimore Colts...I have zero interest in the Indianapolis Colts. Ask anyone in Baltimore. And I'll bet the same feelings previal in Montreal. I hate that Baltimore Colts redirect.--Jmj1000 16:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The choices we make on article titles are not to be based on feelings - they are based on conventions and standards and logic. It is the same franchise. There are dozens of examples of this precendent in the NBA, NFL and MLB articles. Every other baseball team in Wikipedia holds the history of its own franchise movement; just because some Expos fans are mad or sad or upset or angry doesn't mean the Expos/Nats issue should be treated any differently. Kingturtle 18:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kingturtle the Expos and the Nationals are the same franchise. Wikipedia should have the same policy for all sport teams when a team moves unless there is some special or unqiue circumstances ie Cleveland Browns, where the NFL clearly made it a spereate team. I am from Minnesota and would not support a seprate Minnesota North Stars or Minneapolis Lakers article, thoses teams moved and their history becomes part of the new club ie Dallas Stars and Los Angeles Lakers. The Norquies, Jets and Whalers should be merger with Colorado, Phoenix and Carolina. Smith03 18:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP NHL teams have their own defunct franchise page, why not MLB? Whether MLB considers the Expos as a distinct franchise or not should be irrelevant: MLB played the principle role in killing baseball in Montreal through picking cronies of Bud Selig who would gut the team after the city refused to pay for a new baseball stadium. Using MLB's opinion as a crutch to support an argument against a seperate Montreal page is ludicrous. MLB wants Expos history to be brushed over, because it highlights their sins and incompetence in running baseball. -- Flynn
    The above was from Flynnie (talk • contribs). Comment was at the top (before proposer's comments), moved to the bottom. -- Curps 04:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Flynn, you're now bringing conspiracy theory into the mix. wikipedia should not cowtow to such emotions and to such inventions of conspiracies. the bottomline is that the expos and the nats are the same franchise, and all other MLB franchises carry with them their place and name histories. As for their time in Montreal, they finished last in NL attendance for seven years running (1998 - 2004) - and that streak started long before MLB took the franchise over. Furthermore, between 1984 and 2004, Montreal only twice finished as high as 8th in NL attendance, and those years were '84 and '85. So one can argue that the principle role in killing baseball in Montreal was lack of fan support. Kingturtle 07:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Bud Selig's own Milwaukee Brewers have an even more pitiful attendance record than Montreal. Your own ignorance about what happened with the Expos should not be used against the team. Read 'la Defense de Montreal' before you talk. What happened with the Expos was a travesty - no other sports team's fanbase has suffered through such a consistent effort by ownership and the league itself to poison enthusiasm in the insatiable quest for publicly funded stadiums, especially the Loria tenure that had some moves that bordered on racketeering. Flynnie
        • The Bud Selig saga with the Brewers is a completely different story. Selig LIED that the Brewers were financially ruined, but they weren't. he used the lie to get a stadium - and that is disgusting. Although Milwaukee's attendance has been weak, it is not "more pitiful" than the Expos. The Brewers outdrew the Expos in each of the last seven seasons.

*Extremely strong keep. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN


According to my tally keep received 26 votes to date, whereas redirect received 7 votes. I think both sides have made their point. Not much more needs to be said. I don't think an insurgence of redirect votes will come in so let's just keep the page.Trapper 00:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect despite 206.55.81.240's unsigned attempt to prematurely close discussion. —Wahoofive (Talk) 16:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • sorry just learned how to signTrapper

As stated earlier I feel this should be redirect to Washington, however Wikipedia needs to have a constitent policy. So if it is decided that the Montreal Expos should have it own page that would also mean the Los Angeles Angels, California Angels, Anaheim Angels whould each have it own page along with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.Smith03 18:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: While debate is still open and I don't want to seem presumptuous, it does seem that a consensus is forming to keep the Montreal Expos page. Therefore, I offer the following suggestion. Because the Expos' history (records, retired numbers, &c.) has transferred to the Nationals, the Nationals' article should still address the franchise's history as the Montreal Expos, albeit in brief. A link would direct the reader to the "main article" on the franchise's history in Montreal (see United States for an example). I don't think there's any reason to exclude the history of the franchise from when it played in a different city. That would only confuse the informed reader who knows of the team's history and would give a false impression of the team's youth to the ignorant one. I agree with Smith03 that there should be a uniform policy, and the consensus that's building seems to be that if there is enough information to warrant an article under a franchise's old name, then it should exist. So, in the case of the Angels, if there is enough history for each individual incarnation of the franchise (i.e., Los Angeles Angels, California Angels, Anaheim Angels, and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim), then each page should exist, but the page with the team's current name should be comprehensive. In other words, it should address the franchise's entire history, from 1961 to present. The other pages would address the team's history only under that name, and then link to the franchise's other articles.--Canoeguy81 22:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • Perhaps Wikipedia's "consistent policy" could be redirecting defunct team pages that fail to meet a minimum word count. Over time, defunct teams that get little or no direct hits become permanent redirects.Trapper 00:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep it please, a redirect doesnot make sense. !Yuckfoo 00:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This information is certainly of sufficinet historic interest to warrant retention. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Canada's first home team is an important part of the country's baseball heritage. --Madchester 05:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't believe Montreal let the Expos go. "Washington Nationals" sounds like a team that looses to the Harlem Globetrotters. - Pioneer-12 13:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That would be the Washington Generals. Ellsworth 21:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Frankly, if this is kept as a separate article or as a redirect, it makes no difference in terms of overall scope of information. Only the organization of the information will be affected. Either way, the kids will be alright. I do think old-time Expo fans would prefer to have the pages seperate, though. When baseball franchises move to another city and change their name, they do become a different entity. The whole concept of a baseball franchise "moving" is a bit of a lie. They only move in the most technical sense of the word. For all intents and purposes, the old franchise dies, and a new one is built elsewhere using it's bones and ashes. - Pioneer-12 13:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That franchises move is not a lie. *ALL* contracts of the Expos are now with the Nats. *ALL* records of the Expos are now with the Nats. *ALL* retired numbers of the Expos are now retired numbers of the Nats. The Oakland Athletics, for example, own and display the World Series trophies the franchise won in Philadelphia. Kingturtle 15:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Then why did they move away from their hometown, their stadium, and their fans? Why did they abandon their name? They even left their country. Players are traded to different teams all the time. The Nationals may have some of the bones and ashes, but the Montreal Expos are dead. The Nationals should just admit it. It's not like many Expo fans are gonna to travel to Washington anyway. It is a sad day for baseball. Now that I think about it, it is clearly better to have these as two seperate pages. (The individual length of the pages will justify the seperation, in any case.) You don't want a bunch of angry Canadians on your hands, do you? Changing vote to Keep. Canada Viva Canada! Canada - Pioneer-12 23:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • They moved away because the franchise was losing money in Montreal. They were placing last in NL attendance for 8 years running. TV ratings were awful. When the Washington Senators moved to Minnesota, they changed the team name. When the 2nd Washington Senators moved to Texas, the changed the team name. When the St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore, they changed the team name. Every single MLB team in Wikipedia carries with it its franchise history. The Nats/Expos issue should not get special treatment. Kingturtle 06:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: Regarding retired numbers, the LA Dodgers still have Roy Campanella's number retired; the SF Giants still have the numbers retired for Carl Hubbell, Mel Ott, and Bill Terry; the Braves still have Warren Spahn's number retired. The Nats still have Dawson, Staub and Carter's numbers retired. Kingturtle 15:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • And every team has Jackie Robinson's number retired. -- PFHLai 23:26, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. This is a separate team from the Washington Nationals, with its own history and "culture". --Deathphoenix 21:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is the same franchise. The Expos and the Nats are the same franchise. Kingturtle 22:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Same franchise does not mean it's the same team. Look, I can't stand spectator sports. I'm an anti-jock. I have zero patriotism for any of my local sports teams. That said, as a Wikipedian, I am for inclusion of meaningful articles, and for splitting into multiple articles where there is content to merit. The Expos article is a major case of a topic (or sub-topic) meriting its own article. Link it in with the new team that took the franchise, but don't diminish the content by taking away this article. GrantNeufeld 05:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Every single MLB team article in wikipedia carries with it its franchise history. The Expos/Nats issue should not get special treatment. Kingturtle 06:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • There is no call for "special treatment". Every team with a history that moves and changes it's name should get a seperate entry for the previous name. If other teams don't have them, that's only because they haven't been created yet. Even if you don't think the old team is a seperate entity, it still deserves it's own page as a "major chapter" in the history of the current team. (It is not uncommon to split long, detailed histories into multiple pages.) Thus, whatever your personal beliefs about franchise reincarnation, there is no reason to deny this page. Also, merging the pages will create confusion. Gary Carter was an Expo and a Hall of Famer. He's even in the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame. He was never a National. Listing him as a "Hall of Famer for the Nationals" would be misleading. He belongs on the Expos page. The more I think about it, the more I see that it is just completely wrong to try to merge these pages. - Pioneer-12 07:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Other teams don't have separate entries because that's the precedent. It's the same way with the NBA team articles and the NFL team articles. As for confusion, it is not confusing or misleading that Walter Johnson is listed and discussed on the Minnesota Twins article, or that George Sisler is listed on the Baltimore Orioles article, or that Jim Bouton is mentioned on the Milwaukee Brewers article - and it isn't confusing or misleading that the Nats have Gary Carter's number retired. Kingturtle 07:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Can we put aside emotional appeals and just look at this objectly MLB is going to treat the Expos and Nats as the same franchise. If we decide to have two artcles for the same team, than here are some more teams that we need to change or start a project for in the NFL:
    • Chicago Cardinals (1898-1959), St Louis Cardinals (1960-87), Phoenix Cardinals (1988-93), Dectaur Stayles, Chicago Stayles, Boston Braves Boston Redskins, Portsmouth Spartans, New York Titians, Boston Patroits, Houston Oilers Tennesse Oilers, Cleveland Rams, Los Angeles Rams, Los Angeles Raiders (Perhaps Oakland Raider 1960-1981) Dallas Texans (1960-62 AFL)
  • NBA
    • Minneapolis Lakers, Ft Wayne Pistons, Syracuse Nationals, Philadephia Warriors, San Francsico Warriors Buffalo Braves, Kansas City-Omaha Kings Kansas City Kings, Charlotte Hornets, Vancouver Grizzlies, San Diego Clippers, San Diego Rockets, Milwaukee Hawks, St Louis Hawks, Chicago Packers, Chicago Zepherys, Baltimore Bullets, Capital Bullets, Washington Bullets New Orleans Jazz, New York Nets,
  • MLB
    • Milwaukee Brewers (1901) Baltimore Orioles (1901-1902) New York Highlanders, Seattle Pilots, St Louis Browns, Both Washinton Senators, Philadelphia A's Kansas City A's Boston Braves, Milwaukee Braves, New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers. Have I missing any? Smith03 16:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Can I ask how many people who want two articles are not from Quebec or another part of Canada? It seems just by looking at people user pages that most of the supports of two pages are from CanadaSmith03 16:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm from the USA. I put the Canadian flags in my post for solidarity. Canadians are cool. Let me point out that the Expos fans are the experts on this issue. If they say that there should be a seperate page, then there should be a seperate page. (What is that, 4 reasons to keep the pages seperate now? Some people just won't be convinced no matter how much evidence there is.) Stop wasting your time trying to merge this page, a merge that is clearly both inappropriate and unwanted, and go improve something. - Pioneer-12 18:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Please take note at how Canadian fans have treated the move of the Grizzlies to Memphis Grizzlies. They have kept true to the redirect idea supported by all MLB, NFL and NBA articles. Kingturtle 19:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The redirect idea was a bad idea to begin with, for all the reasons said by the many contributors to this page. It's time to follow the path of reason and justice and let go of our errant, confused ways of the past. Let us not be biased by old prejudices. This article, and this vote, will be the first step towards setting things right. Viva la Revolution! - Pioneer-12 20:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Please don't confuse democracy with justice. Kingturtle 20:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • [4] from MLB.com Smith03 16:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite keep. Nice list above but the article is hear to stay. --LeoTheLion 16:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for hockey I am looking at page 101 of the NHL official record book 2005 an it refers to Phoenix Coyotes franchise date as June 22 1979, than transferred to phx July 1 1996. So even the NHL list teams that have relocated by their orginial dateSmith03 17:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except the Winnipeg Jets had an existence as a WHA team before they joined the NHL. The conceptual link and sense of continuity between the WHA Jets and the NHL Jets is much stronger than the link between the Jets and the Coyotes. Same with Quebec Nordiques. -- Curps 17:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget the Hartford Whalers. Same issue. --Madchester 17:40, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

my point is that the NHL doese not consider the coyotes and jets two different teams if it helps they include the Minnesota North Stars with the Dallas StarsSmith03 20:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect. It should redirect as all of the other franchise moves do. The fact is, the Expos are NOT a defunct franchise. I think people are getting confused as to what defunct means. Example: The Milwaukee Braves are not defunct. All of their records and everything else transferred to Atlanta along with the team. Folding a team makes it defunct...not moving it. This is a long standing principle. I mean my favorite baseball team, the Milwaukee Brewers, spent one year in Seattle as the Pilots before moving to Milwaukee and yet all of the Pilots records are considered Brewers records. It's the same team. NOT defunct. --Woohookitty 18:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Major League Baseball and the National League regard these as the same franchise, just as they regard the St. Louis Browns and Baltimore Orioles as the same franchise. Officially, the Expos' records now belong to the Nationals. Keep in mind that Hank Aaron is recognized as the Atlanta Braves' career leader in home runs, even though he hit most of them in Milwaukee. I would support an offshoot article on the franchise's years in Montreal, though it shouldn't simply be under the title Montreal Expos; perhaps titled History of the Montreal Expos? Suggest moving the existing article to some such title, and then revising the redirects from this current pair to the Nationals rather than the new article. MisfitToys 20:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect in accordance with other "moved franchise" team articles, although it looks like the debate is pretty well tilted the other way. Ellsworth 21:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I think consistency is the most important thing. God knows Wikipedia is not internally consistent, but it is a goal that should be strived for. Given the precedent for other teams which have moved, I think that redirection is a no-brainer. Of course, the case could be made that there exists a precedent for keeping the pages of Canadian teams which are stolen by, er, moved to the US (e.g. Winnipeg Jets and my beloved Québec Nordiques). However, the Vancouver Grizzlies are redirected, so it appears that keeping separate pages applies to NHL teams alone. So be it. Keeping the page thus violates consistency. Now, if someone wants to incite a revolution, starting separate pages for all the moved teams, then sign me up. That's not what we're talking about here, however. And I say this as someone who will never, as long as I live, recognize the validity of the Washington Nationals. -- GreenLocust 21:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

can we get a list of thoses who support keeping two pages who are not upset Expo fans. Just because more people support keeping two pages does not necessary make that the right choice for wikipedia. Is someway we can have neutral people ie people who are not baseball fans make decesion not only for the expos/nats but so we have a general rule that we use all the time when franchise relocate.Smith03 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who is part of the Wikipedia community should have an equal say on this issue, regardless of their background. You're just opening another can of worms by creating separate polls for "Expos fans" and "non-Expos fans"; what's to say that those results won't be skewed? --Madchester 21:06, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm pretty much agnostic as to the redirect/keep brouhaha; I see both sides as having valid points. However, I had a thought of my own. What about a "History of baseball in Montréal" article? This article could incorporate both the Expos and the Montreal Royals, the city's former minor-league team. The Nationals article could have a link to the new Montréal baseball history article for those who have a specific interest in Expos history. Dale Arnett 22:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect conditionally. Both sides have valid points, but we should be consistent. I think a good policy is redirect for name changes without a location change (Los Angeles/California/Anaheim angels) and city changes without name changes (Brooklyn/LA Dodgers). However, it may be acceptable to have distinct articles for teams which change both cities and names. Until Seattle Pilots, Washington Senators, St. Louis Browns, etc. have their own article, we should be consistent. However, I'd be in favor of NOT doing this, and using REDIRECTS in all three "franchise change" possibilities. --Locarno 22:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I like this idea. Though I vote for redirect, for the sake of consistency, emotionally I'm with the keepers on this one. It just makes me sad to think that typing in "Montreal Expos" will lead me to the page of the Washington Nationals abomination. Clearly, there a lot of people who feel similarly, and I think this idea is a good compromise between the two camps. Creating a new page for every name change (without a move) would be silly, but I support a separate page for a team identity which no longer exists. If it's done for the Expos, however, it should be done for the rest - all or none. If it can be done for the NHL, why not for MLB? -- GreenLocust 23:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The Expos should have a separate article. Though they are the same franchise, for all purpose the Expos and Nationals are pretty much separate entities. I support this in the case of most such franchise moves — see Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes... the Whalers have arguable enough history and encyclopaedic data to merit an article of its own. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I was asked to come in here and give my opinion and after reading the above arguments, here it is. If they hadn't changed fan-base, I would certainly vote to redirect (like LAA moving from Anaheim to Los Angeles market (even though not really, what a joke that is) or SD moving to Petco or MIL moving to the NL). I would like to see separate articles for NY Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, Boston Braves, etc unless there isn't much info to put in them in which case they should be footnotes in SF, LAD, and ATL. I think there is enough substance in this case to warrant MON having its own article. I know this is not how the other article are currently done, but this is how I think they should be done. The reason my vote is weak is because I think all the stats/feats/retired numbers/etc should be on the Nats page even though they happened in Montreal, but I'm a little confused on that part. The Expos page should only contain a historical account of the era and it certainly should not have that snazzy franchise box. →Vik Reykja 23:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Ok they've moved to a new town and changed their name, but it's still the same franchise. To use an example from another sport Wimbledon F.C. redirects to Milton Keynes Dons F.C., both moves happened at a similar time, and both were controversial. Brooklyn Dodgers don't have their own article, so why should the Expos? Rje 00:23, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess if we didn't have any articles for Japanese scientists, but only a list, then we could never create an article for a Japanese scientist, because "the other ones don't have it". - Pioneer-12 09:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That is not the same thing. Wimbledon F.C. used to have an article. After their move, which was arguably more controversial than that of the Expos, this became a redirect to MK Dons. As for the Dodgers: their franchise still exists, and so does the Expos. Rje 15:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - I am somewhat ignorant of baseball, but it seems to me that the article should be merged into the current team with a clear mention of what happened (they are still the same team, from what I've been told!). All the current info should be merged into the Washington Nationals article. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - if we have articles for minor league teams, we can have articles for major league franchises that have moved. Think of it as history part 1 and history part 2. dml 01:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - if the Expos, poorly followed for the most part for much of the post Parc Jarry era in Montreal deserve a page, then certainly the beloved-by-millions Brooklyn Dodgers do, and our logic is that they do not. (However, a very close examination would seem to reveal that several relocated Arena football and old Amercian Basketball Association franchises have multiple pages, so we're not totally consistent here.) Rlquall 03:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The ABA was troubled with franchises that went belly up. A defunct franchise is different than a franchise that moves. I am happy to look into any pages you want me to. Kingturtle 03:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Brooklyn Dodgers do deserve a page....
  • Redirect eventually - The main concern seems to be that 99% of the Nationals' franchise history is as the Montreal Expos. A decade or two from now, when things are more balanced and the "Expos" are unknown to a new generation of baseball fans, the Expos history should be folded into the Nationals history, since it IS the Nationals history. If Wikipedia had been founded in 1957, we'd be hearing a chorus of arguments in favor of keeping team articles at New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers rather than their new California locations. Those arguments would have had some weight then. Now, fifty years later, they make more sense as part of the franchise history incorporated into the article with the franchise's current name. I think it should be redirected now, but people's sentimental feelings seem to be prohibiting that. --Minesweeper 06:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Different team, different fan base, different owners, different history. --Bastique 13:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Different fan base, yes; but same team, same owners, same history. I think this has been established in all the other comments. --Locarno 18:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Let's be consistent with the other Major League Baseball teams. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. AFWIW, I think the Brooklyn Dodgers should be separate article. jengod 19:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Nats are not the same as the Expos, really. Iceberg3k 19:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would like to see an overall franchise page for every team and for franchises that have relocated, separate pages that contain the discrete histories of the team in each locale. I know this runs counter to the current precedent, but I think it better reflects the way fans think of their teams' histories without compromising the perspective of the owners and leagues. I think it should be done across all franchises in all sports. Veronique 22:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - stay consistant. 70.49.26.37 19:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and begin making separate pages for other teams that have moved. - SimonP 19:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am wondering: should we also create separate articles for cities that have changed names, such as Saigon (redirects to Ho Chi Minh City) and Leningrad (redirects to Sain Petersburg)? Consistency would seem to dictate that we should.--Canoeguy81 21:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you picked up the city and moved it a hundred miles or more, then yes. On the other hand, if you moved the whole city along with the team, then there would likely be no need for separate articles on the relocated team.
If you are wondering how it is possible to move an entire city, then a bit of research is in order. You see, according to popular mythology, it has already happened to the city of Boston.
- Pioneer-12 22:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No one, as far as I know, is suggesting creating separate articles for teams that have simply changed names but not moved (e.g. Anaheim Angels). Canoeguy81, your analogy is flawed. -- GreenLocust 01:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - precedent can and should be overturned when the situation warrants. The Expos are one of the first teams to move since the inception of wikipedia, and hence have a good article, unlike the dodgers and others. Many more people have an interest in it than in those older teams, hence the article. I guarantee that if wikipedia had been around 50 years ago those others would have articles as well. Peregrine981 12:13, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Redirect - It's the same franchise, the same team, the same owners, the same history. The Montreal Expos still exist, but now they're called the Washington Nationals. To not redirect is to steal the Nats history. Varitek 15:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: "the same owners" ? Please note that the Nats don't really have an owner yet. AFAIK, MLB bought out the last owners of the Expos (a local consortium) a few years back for a relocation. So, MLB is just a "caretaker" owner while a new owner is being recruited. -- PFHLai 16:22, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Yes but the "owners" of the Expos in 04 are the same as the "owners" of Nats in 05. I was thinking the Expos played some of their games in SAn Juan the last 2 years, so they had a different fan base for those games, Should we also do an article like Montreal Expos of San Juan? Smith03 18:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep

I think that it is too soon to be making this decision.

Right now the Nationals are claiming the history of the Expos, just as the Minnesota Twins claim the history of the first incarnation of the Washington Senators and the Texas Rangers claim the history of the second incarnation of the Washington Senators. But now that Washington has a team, you see people like Frank Howard, who played for the Senators, participating in Nationals events. I think that eventually, the fans in Washington, DC, will want the Senators history, and since the Twins and the Rangers are not really doing anything with the Senators history, I think that having a real, live baseball team in DC will eventually lead to the Washington franchise getting back the Senators' history, in a way that is different from franchises that existed for one year or in the 19th century. The DC fans undoubtedly care more about the Senators than about the Expos and I think the Expos history will eventually end up like Youppi!, the Expos mascot, the rights to which has been bought by a Canadian company. Let what was done in Montreal stay in Montreal, and what was done in Washington, DC, stay in Washington, DC. - --Mretalli 00:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - just to give you an idea of how the major MLB sites are dealing with this issue:
  1. MLB has left the Montreal Expos page blank - and all official Expos info is now housed by the MLB at the Washington Nationals page.
  2. http://www.montrealexpos.com/ forwards to the Washington Nationals Official page
  3. Baseball-reference has put all Expos info under the Nationals page
  4. Baseball-almanac now houses all Expos history on their Washington Nationals page - and Baseball-almanac created an automatic foward from http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/expo.shtml to http://baseball-almanac.com/teams/washington_nationals.shtml
  5. CBS Sportsline forwards their Expos page to their Washington Nationals page
  6. ESPN's old Expos URL says "404 - FILE NOT FOUND", and all Expos related info is on ESPN's Washington page
  7. Fox Sports has no team page for the Expos, and all Expos related info is on their Washington page
  8. Yahoo's old Expos URL forwards to their Nationals URL
  9. Canada.com's page on the Expos forwards to Canada.com's page on the Nationals; an old Canada.com URL for the Expos now just says "Error: Block Not Found"
  10. USA Today, strangely enough, still has an Expos page and another Expos page, but they list the 2005 Washington Nationals' results and schedule - data which is the same as the Nationals page

More to come, Kingturtle 00:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep

This is the first time a MLB franchise has moved in over thirty years. In this age of the Internet, MLB can change the Expos records to the Nationals by changing one field and have it affect every field on the MLB.com site. The same is true of the other sites you mention. Shades of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 - --Mretalli 21:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • What are you talking about Orwell here for? It has always been standard practice for MLB franchises to take with them their records and contracts. Is it Orwellian that the Nationals had spring training in the same facilities that the Expos did? Is it Orwellian that the Nationals use the same minor league affiliates that the Expos did? Is it Orwellian that the Baltimore Orioles' story involves the St. Louis Browns? I don't get this Orwell reference one bit. Kingturtle 22:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep

Wikipedia hasonly been around a short time. Certainly not long enough for fans of other franchises that have left cities to have encountered the problem. Montreal fans have the right to keep their own article about the history of their team. The Expos present a unique case in the history of pro baseball. The team was essentially ownerless, being owned by the league. The whole character of a franchise is altered by the change in its ownership. Exshpos-- 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Actually, what you say is inaccurate. Wikipedia has been around long enough for fans from other franchises to encounter this situation. They chose to create a redirect and put the franchise history in the new article (see Charlotte Hornets and Vancouver Grizzlies). Kingturtle 01:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: tonight on ESPN, John Miller and Joe Morgan mentioned that John Patterson (of the Nationals) had the lowest ERA through his first 4 starts (0.98) in team history since Pedro Martinez in 1997 (when Martinez had a 0.31 ERA in his first 4 starts). Kingturtle 01:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep

To say there is enough content to support two pages is an understatement. The Montreal Expos existed as a successful Major League Baseball franchise for 36 seasons. The 2005 Washington Nationals are both a new team and a very very old team. Many people forget that the first incarnation of the Washington Senators, the team that eventually moved to Minnesota, was originally called the Washington Nationals. The Washington Nationals won the 1924 World Series. The name has also been traced as far back as the Civil War when the Washington Nationals baseball club was defeated by a team from the 71st New York Regiment in a game played on the Ellipse in Washington, DC on July 2, 1861. To categorize the 2005 Washington Nationals as a mere extension of the Montreal Expos is to deny both cities their unique places in the history of Baseball. Rubennyc 01:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

    • The Washington Nationals in this incarnation are the same team as the Expos. Therefore, this is this Washington Nationals' 37th season. The other Washington teams were different franchises. They have nothing to do with this Washington Nationals. Kingturtle 01:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • "this is this Washington Nationals' 37th season" -- What a charming and bizarre fiction. Two years ago, there was no such thing as the Washington nationals, and now they are in their 37th season. MLB may decide that, for its own record-keeping purposes, it is going to create fictions like this, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to parallel that. Professional sports teams exist because of fans. No fans - no money - no team. The Expos fans (and I am not one) are, for the most part, not the Nats' fans. )That was the problem - there weren't enough of them. If that continues in Washington, then the team will soon enough become the San Jose Chili Fingers or something like that. In the minds of most people, the two teams are separate entities. there is no harm then in having two articles that are linked to each other and that indicate the connection (including MLB's view of the situation) between the two teams. Wikipedia need not follow the dictates of MLB. Ground Zero 22:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
        • You don't understand. It is the same franchise. For example, the Yankees are in their 105th year - even though the first two years were played in BALTIMORE! The Twins are in their 105th year, even though the first 60 years were played in WASHINGTON! The Nats and the Expos are the same franchise - the same contracts - the same payrolls - the same records - the same retired numbers - the same minor league affiliates - the same spring training facility - the same retired numbers. And this is not some unique situation designed just for the Nat/Expos. The exact same carry over has happened dozens of times in MLB, starting over 100 years ago. Kingturtle 22:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
          • "You don't understand." Just becaue I don't agree with you, that doesn't mean I don't understand.
          • Different city, different country, different name, different fans, different mascot, different stadium, different ethno-linguistic cultural context.... Bet you won't be able to get poutine at the Nats' games. Or hear announcements dans les deux langues officielles. Ground Zero 22:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As long as we're still voting, Keep. Yes, there is continuity, but when a team changes names and switches cities, the identity becomes significantly different enough to merit separate articles. The fans and team good will do not carry over to any great extent, and it isn't like this happens in MLB often enough that keeping separate articles becomes problematic. Obviously the Expos article will conclude by saying that the team became the Nationals, and the Nationals team will begin by saying the team was formerly the Expos, and I don't see why that's a problem. Furthermore, each article certainly has substantial independent content. Postdlf 03:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Resources concerned primarily by statistics have absolutely no reason to maintain an Expos page. The teams in Washington and Montréal are continuous. However, Wikipedia should be much more than a sports almanac listing team records. It should be a record of the culture of the organisation far beyond the simple legalistic definition of the organisation. Within a couple of years the Washington Nationals will have nothing to do with the Montréal Expos beyond the dusty old record books. I doubt if many Montréal fans will follow Washington particularly avidly. Nor will Washington fans look back fondly on the days in Montréal. In a strict sense their histories are the same, but in a human sense they are completely and totally different.

One example of this, the old Ottawa Senators of the early 20th century, including their records and Stanely Cups, are claimed by the modern franchise (at least they hang their banners) even though, in a legal sense, the two organisations have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. However, in a human way they do. Peregrine981 14:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned on the Colorado Avalanche page on how the Quebec and Colorado incarnations of the team are the same franchise, but they share divergent histories. The Nordiques had an intense rivalry with the Canadiens in the 80's and 90's but that never carried over to the Avs. Likewise, the Avs and Wings had all those (literally) bloody playoff series, but that has nothing to do with the Nordiques whatsoever. --Madchester 17:49, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP FOR 50 YEARS. Then, maybe.

Spare me the personal attacks and one line throaway quips which are meaningless in this encyclopedia context. If you have a strong essay stating your position that would be welcome and in line with the policies of Wikipedia. If you cannot do so, please skip. Don't bother chopping up my essay into parsed segments and then twisting the meaning into your favor. This is not the John Stewart Show. Thank you.

Dear Wikipedians,

I have lived in both the Western U.S., Montreal and the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. I have worked for the Senate in the legal arena in D.C. I am privileged to have a unique view of this subject. More importantly, I would like too see Wikipedia become an encyclopedia of record.

The very nature of an encyclopedia is at issue here, in my humble opinion. I grew up a big fan of encyclopedia of various kinds.

1. The socio-economic-cultural reasons of each sports franchises are separate and distinct. Here, we have the 1st major professional international franchise in another language and culture. The city was so unique that Branch Rickey decided to send Jackie Robinson to Montreal in 1947 to break the colour barrier.

Why? Bucky Rogers, Hall of Famer from the legendary Negro League, Kansas City Monarchs, said of the French city "it was cosmopolitan. He couldn't play in Alabama." To this day, Mrs. Robinson recalls the kindness of her white French neighbours, who were concerned over her pregancy. You can find transcripts of this.

2. Moreover, the rise and fall of the Expos have nothing to with the rise and falls of the Washington Senators either emotionally nor factually nor the Nationals in the future. D.C. has its own rich history of baseball. Montreal's date back to 1910 in minor league professional circles. Former Prime Minister Trudeau's father owned such a team.

3. This entry however plays pivotal role in the history of Major League Baseball during the turn of 21th century. The historical judgment of this commissioner has yet to be settled and judged well into the next 50 years. Think of the 1919 Black Sox and the creation of a new commissioner. Commissioner Selig's legacy is rife with contraversies from the 1994 stike, to the contraction of the small market teams, to a Congressionally "mandated" or "pressured" steroid policy which threatens to make home-run records statistically meaningless. The sports has fallen from America's pastime to maybe third pastime behind the NFL and maybe the NBA. The Expos is also part of his legacy, like it or not.

MLB wants to sell this franchise's assets. The Expos are now legally dissolved as a company or inactive. MLB's future sale of the Nationals to an owner and his deal with Peter Angelos are also part of that history. However, they are separate from its Montreal existence. Any redirection into Washington would curtail and snuff out any historical analysis of Selig's actions and his job as commissioner. This would make Wikipedia less useful for such an historical examination. It would, however, be very useful in finding a buyer with deep pockets. In other words the very nature of an encyclopedia would be in part sacrificed at the altar of greed and profit completely unrelated to Wikipedia.Italic text

For example, a month ago, I added a section about the 2003 "conflict of interests" between the Expos and its 29 owners. Did they really want the franchise to win the Wild Card over one of the non-MLB owned teams ? Now just a few days ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer had an article over the 2003 lack of September call-ups. MLB and the owners did not allow the calling up on minor leagues in its wild card race. This legacy is still being questioned. I like to think if a writer were to just glance at the Wikipedia, a writer would be inspired to examine an issue or two. Did the writer do so? We may never know. But the resource would be there for anyone either new or experienced in any field of endeavor without prejudice. The Vietnam War,ended in 1973, and is still being discussed and argued even as the sub rosa issue of the 2003 U.S. election ( recall "Swift Boat", CBS' and Bush 's war record in Vietnam).

4. MLB's position is clear. They have erased and expunged most if not all references to the Montreal franchise. If you go to RFK, there will be no Expos logos. The announcer, Elliott Price, who had some 14 years of experience and knowledge of the Expos was let go, the mascot replaced and the logo shelved. The staff replaced by and large. And news reports say the former Expos players, bless their souls, "have moved on".

A real encylopedia should remain free and independant and not react instinctively to short-term commercial or emotional interests. In this same vein, the Nationals should have a separate entry into the creation of its team and the successes and problems with such an association. Any such infringement of such analyses would also short-change that team. There should be entries on the Mayor's role, the burgeoning middle class and suburbs and the dissenting voices from the urban core. The tv deal etc...(BTW, I also enjoyed the time I lived in DC.) Information is power. That is the function of a real encyclopedia. The lack of information is control by those who have the means of creation, production and distribution. The very nature of the encylopedia is at stake here in my opinion. I don’t think dissenting Wikidpedians really has this in mind but the results are the same. There are whole governments and societies that run away from their pasts. Japan is running away from its World War II atrocities. While China is running away and commiting genocide of its minorities. In fact, North America wishes to forget the decimation of its aborinals. Wikipedia should not fall under this same historical amnesia. I'm not saying that MLB is a corrupt government but it is a private, self-interested, multi-billionaire dollar company or if you wish a "corporate welfare collector". And it is rife with inequities between small teams and big teams. Nevertheless, Wikipedia's independance from those market forces, MLB's "leadership" and its Commissioner Selig's plans or any other influences is crucial.Keeping this entry and mentioning the Nationals in this concluson is one important step towards that scholastic neutrality.

Thank you for this forum and your time, mods of the Wikipedia and fellow Wikipedians.

Kingturtle 05:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

***The scoreboard***
Keep
  1. Curps
  2. Foodmarket
  3. Mo0
  4. Radiant
  5. Ground Zero
  6. Idont Havaname
  7. GrantNeufeld
  8. Spinboy
  9. Adam Bishop
  10. TenOfAllTrades
  11. Samaritan
  12. NormanEinstein
  13. PFHLai
  14. Vegaswikian
  15. kelvSYC
  16. Jayjg
  17. El_C
  18. Michaelk
  19. Jmj1000
  20. Earl Andrew
  21. Flynnie
  22. Yuckfoo
  23. Capitalistroadster
  24. Madchester
  25. Pioneer-12
  26. Deathphoenix
  27. LeoTheLion
  28. Blankfaze
  29. Vikreykja
  30. dml (DavidLevinson)
  31. Bastique
  32. Trapper
  33. veronique
  34. iceburg3k
  35. jengod
  36. exshpos
  37. Rubennyc
  38. Postdlf
  39. BenjiFranklin
 Redirect
  1. Canoeguy81
  2. Kingturtle
  3. Firebug
  4. RickK
  5. Woohookitty
  6. Samuel J. Howard
  7. Smith03
  8. Wahoofive
  9. MisfitToys
  10. GreenLocust
  11. Locarno
  12. Ellsworth
  13. Rje
  14. Ta bu shi da yu
  15. Rlquall
  16. Minesweeper
  17. Zzyzx11
  18. mulad
  19. rlquall
  20. Varitek
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. sjorford →•← 08:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diego Segui

vanity and pov FoodMarkettalk! 05:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*DeleteFoodMarkettalk! 05:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral, I've heard of Diego Segui - IMO, journeymen players like him are just on the borderline of notability. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we might as well rewrite it. As written, it is a personal attack. Firebug 18:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I rewrote the article and removed the personal attacks and unencyclopedic language. Firebug 18:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite. Foodmarket, could you fix your sig? it's broken. RickK 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 15 years in the major leagues is notable enough (less than four and I'd be unsure). Average Earthman 22:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fg2 02:02, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability established for both him and his son... I'm surprised his son doesn't have his own article; he was in the majors for a while too (I think he retired last year). --Idont Havaname 03:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Firebug's rewrite. Player with reasonably lengthy career as a professional baseball player. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Slivkin

  • 0 Google [[5]] Lotsofissues 06:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a very poorly made vanity page. Mo0[talk] 06:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 12:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually Delete ---FoodMarket talk! 15:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which will be implemented as soon as block-compression errors are resolved. Postdlf 02:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (Isn't it cute how I said that kind of like I knew what I was talking about?)

[edit] How to breed Siamese Fighting Fish

Discussed here before, consensus was to move to Wikibooks. This is now done. (Imho plain delete would be better, this is from an anon, and the hopes of additional content is nil). -- Egil 06:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I've noted some details of the transwiki process that have been skipped over, at User talk:Egil. On solely procedural grounds, my vote is keep until those are sorted out, at which point it becomes delete, in agreement with the prior VFD discussion (Talk:How to breed Siamese Fighting Fish). Uncle G 13:04, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --InShaneee 19:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Spinboy 19:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Take It Easy (2005)

Non notable student film that no one has ever heard of. Fails pokemon test. Delete. --Spinboy 06:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Take It Easy + "Calum Marsh" gets 0 google hits. Even Brian Schwor gets more than that. Xezbeth 06:49, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 12:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. CalumMarshcruft. RickK 20:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Take It Easy" + Calum Marsh also gets 0 relevant google hits. An article that cannot be google-verified should probably include references so it can be otherwise verified. Otherwise, it's likely going to be presumed to be non-notable (as in this case). GrantNeufeld 20:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. —UTSRelativity 23:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Spinboy 19:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Jackson

Non notable student actor. Vanity article. Fails pokemon test. Delete. --Spinboy 06:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP* Specifically pertaining to Spinboy in terms of Jackson's notability and references: Jackson is established actor in his hometown (credits include "A Midsummer Nights Dream" and "Dudley the Lonely Dragon"). The fact that Spinboy actually wrote 'fails pokemon test' proves that Jackson is far superior than those who vote for his deletion. User: Simmer
  • Delete, not notable, reads like a puff piece. Matthew Jackson + "Calum Marsh" gets no google hits that pertain to him. Delete Image:Wikipedia.JPG as well. Xezbeth 07:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 12:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • [[DO NOT DELETE.]] i know him personally and this is not a vanity article. Every fact in here is 100% true. Calum Marsh and Matthew Jackson are real, just because there are no google entries, does not mean they "do not exisit". Google doesnt have everything. DO NOT DELETE. this is factual.
    • Just because it's factual doesn't make it notable. Above 'vote' from User:Sades1313. --Spinboy 16:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would it not be notable? People can be notable in their own rights. just because u dont know who he is, doesnt mean others dont and it doesnt make him "not notable"--sades1313 16:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • He needs to have done something outside of Carleton to be notable. Like being in a film at the Cannes Film Festival or Sundance Film Festival, or a major motion picture, and a role besides an extra. Appearing in a student film doesn't make him notable. --Spinboy 16:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • [[DO NOT DELETE.]] keep. i searched them. and i got info. it made my day.
  • Delete. Maybe he'll be a notable actor a few years from now. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no one is denying that the subject of the article is a real person, but not everyone is notable. Firebug 18:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity. --InShaneee 19:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, no more notable than Calum Marsh. RickK 19:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • "The above vote is from User:216.249.53.163 and looks shockingly a lot like that of User:Sades1313. " WRONG. not me. nice try though. Why dont you prove that he isnt notable. just because you cant find information on him from google, doesnt mean he isnt notable. Google isnt god, it doesnt know about everything. it has to have been put there in order for google to find it. Whats the big deal, why not leave it there. what does it hurt and he might just be note worthy in the books of many, just because you dont think he is, doesnt mean he isnt.and another thing, Calum Marsh has had his movies played in film festivals and theatres, isnt that notable?! --sades1313 20:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not up to us to prove he is notable. It's up to the people working on the article to provide back up references, etc. --Spinboy 20:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sock-puppetry never helps one's cause. The subject of the article is decidedly non-notable, however, so my vote would be the same in the absence of puppets. Feco 21:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg (talk) 06:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable and probable vanity. If User:Mattjackson is, by any chance, Matthew Jackson, another acceptable possibility would be to "userfy" it, i.e. move it to his currently blank personal user page, where it would be perfectly appropriate. If User:Mattjackson wants this done, he should say so here. (Anyone know what the GFDL issues are in userfying a page that has more than one contributor?) Dpbsmith (talk) 14:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I couldn't forsee an issue in this. But I doubt that user is here to do anything but promote his own page. --Spinboy 16:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam and Max: Freelance Police (computer game)

The article is for a sequel to Sam & Max Hit the Road that was cancelled last year, I suggest a merging of any relevant information that doesn't already exist there, into the original games' article. -- Quoth 06:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Concur with that, merge. Radiant_* 07:39, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect sadly, will never have enough for a good article on its own. --InShaneee 19:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, as above. A Man In Black 11:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. sjorford →•← 08:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HL7

Delete. Advertisement. Edwardian 07:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Important international standard in healthcare. --Pjacobi 09:42, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important. N-Mantalk 11:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Appears notable, [6]. Megan1967 12:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Megan1967. -- Dcfleck 12:26, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. Withdrawing nomination for deletion. I'll attempt to lend a hand in cleaning up the parts that led to my confusion. Edwardian 15:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article should be renamed/moved to Health Level 7 (Its proper full name) to avoid any confusion, and a redirect from HL7 added. Megan1967 03:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, 20 votes to delete, 6 to keep, with 1 vote to merge. Postdlf 02:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The bizarre

This is a collection of some strange stories that, as of the time I am writing this, involve chickens and a sausage. There isn't any unifying concept other than how likely it is that they will be seen as...bizarre. I just can't see any way this constitutes an article. Delete. Postdlf 07:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Should have speedy deleted it while I had the chance. Moncrief 07:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I did speedy it once, but after the contributor (who is not a newbie, btw) recreated it and expanded it further, I thought this would be a better resolution. I also don't know that it's technically nonsense. I don't think the stories are hoaxes, they just don't really relate to each other beyond tone, and I don't think any of them on their own are notable. Postdlf 07:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not suitable material for an encyclopedia.-gadfium 08:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- the author of the infamous article here - admittedly it needs some work - but I don't see why with some work it can't evolve into something more interesting and useful. Jumping on the article within seconds of its creation doesn't really give it much of a change to breath and have exposure to the Wiki community who will no doubt be able to expand on it. The subject of the bizarre - which at the moment isn't represented is a bona fide subject and could do with some exposure. The topic is no more ridiculous than many of the other unusual articles on WIki especially as on the Unusual articles section. The few bits in the article are well sourced and actual bizarre events - Lighten up and give the article a chance! Brookie 08:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for this article, but its subsections (such as Mike the headless chicken, which to my surprise turned out to be true) may be interesting elsewhere (see WP:UA). Or in a section of Wikinews. Delete. Radiant_* 10:49, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - whacky and a bit raw - but something to work on here. There is a story about a Japanese fishing boat sunk by a flying cow - which would go well in here - I'm with Bookie on this. McGnasher 12:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd forgotten about that one - updated the article for it.
  • This isn't an encyclopaedia article, it's a collection of news summaries (with a reference to Mike the headless chicken added for flavour). Maybe there's an encyclopaedia article to be had on the bizarre as a concept, although I suspect that it will be tremendously difficult to pin down what the concept actually is. This isn't such an article, though. As it stands, this is just Wackynews stories in the encyclopaedia, rather than in the newspaper where they belong. As Radiant! points out, we already have WP:UA for a list of bizarre, off-beat, and unusual encyclopaedia articles. And in all of the time that we've had it no-one has yet pinned down an encyclopaedia article on the unusual. Delete, and strongly encourage the author and McGnasher to come and to contribute to the section of Wikinews devoted to taking just this sort of this stuff. Uncle G 14:23, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
    • Brookie here - I will investigate the Wikinews which I haven't really looked at to date. On another point, how can stuff get into WP:UA if the articles to go in there are deleted! Brookie 14:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • From your article here, it looks like Wackynews will be right up your street. As for the latter question: Mike the Headless Chicken, which you've done a lot of work on, is already listed in WP:UA, and hasn't been deleted. So the question is somewhat moot. Uncle G 15:44, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • It does look pretty cool, but we already have this covered in Unusual articles, right? Merge this article onto that list. --Idont Havaname 14:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page as I understand is only a clearing house for the more wacky articles - not a place where the articles live unsupported. There's always Wikipedia:Bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense Brookie 15:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not encyclopedic. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can see Wikipedia:Unusual articles, but as summerized above, this just doesn't belong here. --InShaneee 19:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is more suited for Wikinews. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Kill it before it expands. RickK 20:02, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, so you are indicating that it CAN become unequivicably encyclopedic, and thus immune to deletion, but somehow that offends you. - Pioneer-12 15:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Feco 21:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 05:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for so many reasons: nonencyclopedic, partly dicdef, partly unverifiable, potentially POV (what seems bizarre to one person may not seem so to another), the list goes on and on... --Angr/comhrá 05:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Moncrief should have speedy deleted it while s/he had the chance. El_C 07:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki into Wikinews and delete - Skysmith 08:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is big enough for the bizzare. Klonimus
  • Delete. Wikipedia is neither Wikinews nor an Odditorium. --Carnildo 22:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Definate Keep I do not see what is wrong with the article, it is perfectly factual, I found the article amusing and quite interesting. Definatly KEEP Electricmoose 14:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete while the content may be factual its not placed in any coherent context. Its like an episode of Mythbusters. Andypasto 08:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bizarre is a complex concept worthy of Wikipedia and worthy of serious study. Bizarre is a statement of being extremely unusual, to the point of seeming to bend reality. Ripley's Believe It or Not! has a whole chain of museums on the subject. The article does need some improvement, though. - Pioneer-12 14:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic, utterly unsourced, unverifiable. CDC (talk) 23:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Unverifiable. utcursch | talk 11:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete zellin 20:35, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The northwoods band

They formed in August 2004. They've released a three-song demo. The article claims knowledge of the band's preferences. Gazpacho 08:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established - no album, no allmusic.com entry, dont appear to have done any major tours of note. Megan1967 12:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Going on tour just requires a van, it doesn't signify automatically notability, so I'd need some evidence of prestigious venues. An album deal would also be useful to indicate notability, and it would appear they don't have one. Average Earthman 12:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated above. Mo0[talk] 17:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete any article that can't manage proper capitalization. RickK 20:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The most bizarre thing about these articles is that they more often than not cannot get the first thing right when contributing the article - the name of it. Megan1967 03:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NSwiki:Galactic Alliance

Delete fancruft for short-lived roleplaying alliance filled with "n00bs and wankers". Doesn't belong in wikipedia. Anilocra 08:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable, vanity. --InShaneee 19:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slac speak up! 23:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. By order of the nations of Klonor and Jimathon. El_C 07:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into NationStates (the game). This information is useful in that context. - Pioneer-12 14:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mobotropolis

Delete; NN. See also vfd: "The Day Mobotropolis Fell." Lectonar 09:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which has already been valiantly implemented by User:Neutrality as he struggled for air amidst a sea of sock puppets. Postdlf 02:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nehruvian-Stalinism

Original research, this term has only marginal use. Google shows 27 hits, subtract Wikipedia and mirrors, and some commentator on rediff.com who likes to put this term into his articles, and you see the insignifance. --Pjacobi 09:36, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Speedy Keep this article. PJacobi has been making allegations against others including me and claims that I joined Wiki to make this vote. I've been using this id for at least 2 years now, maybe three, I can't remember. I have made other contributions to Wikipedia and if you search hard enough, you may find them. Why is Wikipedia allowing vandalism of this sort? I have given academic references below while voting. Victoria Primus 14:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, seems to be a phrase invented by (and mostly used) an Indian commentator and blogger Rajeev Srinivasan last year (look at the dates and authorship on those articles). Not notable. Megan1967 12:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Idont Havaname 14:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, topic 1.3.1 (Propaganda or advocacy of any kind) and 1.3.5 (Wikipedia:No original research); See also HERE AN(Ger) 15:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete propaganda. —Seselwa 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Megan1967's explanation. El_C 07:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Delete, because of several reasons.--Bhadani 09:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

**Firstly, the article contains several factual inaccuracies, for example, in India, collectivization of the farm sector was never introduced as the term is understood in the context of former USSR. Please also note the concluding sentence of this article: “In Soviet Union, Stalin made himself all powerful and honored himself by naming Stalingrad after himself during his lifetime. In India, Jawaharlal Nehru came under criticism for the proposal to name Jawaharlal Nehru University after himself during his lifetime.” It is interesting to note that Jawahar Lal Nehru has died on 27th May, 1964(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru) where as Jawahar Lal University (JNU) was opened in early 70s (http://www.jnu.ac.in/main.asp?sendval=Introduction)**Secondly, comparison between Jawaharlal Nehru and Joseph Stalin is highly absurd – Nehru led a democratically elected government of India, whereas Joseph Stalin led a centrally controlled economy. **Thirdly, the term Nehruvian-Stalinism has been used only in two articles in the wikipedia, one in this article, and then in another article Jawahar Lal Nehru. The context in which the term Nehruvian-Stalinism has been used in the article Jawaharlal Nehru smacks of extreme misinformation and biased understanding of the reality of time, when Nehru lived and managed the affairs of India. I presume good faith on behalf of the creator of the article Nehruvian-Stalinism, but the possibility of using the wikipedia to float the term cannot be ruled out, though I am not sure of this, except that a pattern in the use of the term Nehruvian-Stalinism is visible in both the articles. **Fourthly, wikipedia is neither an experiment in anarchy nor it is an experiment in democracy; it is not a place to write about and float new ideas, it is an encyclopedia and not a place for pseudo-academicians to circulate their dogmas. **Fifthly, as a relatively new wikipedian, I may be inexperienced, but I simply marvel at the conceited views of some anonymous editors who write article like this, as well as pick up unnecessary arguments - specimen of which one can find on the Talk page of article Jawahar Lal Nehru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru) - the article, where the term Nehruvian-Stalinism finds mention twice.

All above comments are were without hurting anyone’s feeling and anyone's academic credentials - my comments have been made with an intention to make wikipedia a reliable online encyclopedia. My personal thanks to all above wikipedians, to all other fellow wikipedians, particularly User:Pjacobi and User:Megan1967 for their initiative in this matter to maintain the quality of wikipedia.--Bhadani 16:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) (comments crossed by me in view of certain wiki-users's feeling that I had some vendetta, etc. etc. My vote for Delete stands --Bhadani 09:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC))

      • I have seen some more comments which have appeared after my comments above. It looks fine that the term has created a lot of attention among wikipedia users and I feel very nice that some of them have just registered and come to this page to register their VOTE for KEEP. It reminds me of capturing the polling booth, which happens sometimes, when same person may be voting again and again - this is a general comment of the reality of situation, and not personal comments. I welcome all new comers who registered and did their first ever edit on wikipedia for this issue. Cheers! I also feel the correct and neutral term would be, may be "Nehruvian socialism" or something like that - but, I am stepping aside so that some one with better credentials may write a better article. I am also sure that all those who have come here in support of the term Nehruvian-Stalinism to contribute some inputs to improve the article, if they have time and the inclination. --Bhadani 07:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete accuarcy issues aside, it doesn't appear to be a widely accepted term. Andypasto 08:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - I am shocked at the callous manner in which people bring their politics to the table. This article is accurate and as an Indologist, I can testify that India is an unfortunate country. It is true that India has imposed a Stalinist economy complete with a Planning Commission and the term "commanding heights" is very accurate. My jaw dropped at people doing a web search to determine whether a term is legitimate. Nehruvian-Stalinism is a common term in economics. In fact, many indian economists of the 1960s and 1970s were proud to identify themselves as such! Are we now doubting the reports of Transparency International that considers India to be a corrupt country? What about all the poverty? You do injustice to millions of people who have suffered under the system by deleting an article that is very accurate and to the point. Deletion of this article would be similar to giving in to a lynch-mob that supports Communism. Victoria Primus
  • Victoria here again - Another point is that collectivization *was* introduced in India in the 1950s. It failed and after the war against China, the people of India trashed it as a Chinese method and gave it up.

I should also add that the Congress Party (party of Jawaharlal Nehru) has now formed a government in India with the Communists! ************No way! Do not DELETE******** This word is very much in use by the people in the know! The communists are in control in India are fast moving towards stalinism by finding and obliterating anything that shows them poor light......Wikipedia being a distinguished source of information, should be secular in nature and not give into any political lobbying. [User: Mysore Madhwa

    • Note: 24.214.192.116's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 06:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. I did a Google search too and it seems to have sufficient use to justify its inclusion in wikipedia. As a frequent visitor to India, I have been struck by the personality cult of Nehru there too, very Soviet style. Just as Stalin and Mao did, Nehru too seems to have built himself up, with the same type of poor economic policies. Please, no propaganda and the pushing of personal agendas. And no canvassing of votes either, my fellow editors. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Let us be humble enough to admit that none of us is the world's leading expert on anything. Dear editor Bhadani, no personal crusades or vendettas, please. Charles Kingsley
    • This was Charles' first edit on Wikipedia. Nice to see you joining our efferts, Charles. --Pjacobi 06:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • Thank you, thank you, Pjacobi. It's my pleasure to continue to contribute by humble mite to your efforts, as I have been doing anonymously for some time. Charles Kingsley on a proxy. 164.164.81.4 02:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The argument that the existence of a factual inaccuracy should be grounds to delete the article goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. You just have to edit the article and remove the factual inaccuracy. Haing said that, I have noticed that a lot of internet users belong to the young crowd and do not know much of the cold war era. The article is factually correct and even the point about Jawaharlal Nehru University is correct. The proposal came about in early 60s and it was passed in parliament soon after Nehru's death and then the foundation stone was laid and it took a few years to build it. No university is built overnight.

Also check http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/17/stories/2005011700350900.htm I quote - India's national aim, the outgoing Congress President, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, said in Madras on January 17 "is a welfare state and a socialist economy." In a 6000-word report to the AICC, on relinquishing office as Congress President, Mr. Nehru said the establishment of a socialistic pattern of society had been implicit all along in the Congress objective and "it is right that we should make this perfectly clear now and keep this picture in view at all stages of our planning.

Economically, Indian economy is still Stalinist in nature. Why are we trying to cover this up? Wikipedia should not be covering up stuff, but should propagate insights from experts wherever possible. You should welcome the expert view instead of insisting on the populist view every time. LibertarianAnarchist


  • DO NOT DELETE - The article is reasonably accurate, and the term is widely used among right wing political circles in India.
  • Who posted the last vote above? Can you please sign your name? I just read the deletion policy page and I see that you are supposed to vote as "keep" and not as "do not delete." I changed my vote to "keep" from "do not delete". Can others do the same just in case a script counts the votes. I guess I started the trend and others just followed suit. From the deletion policy page, I also see that you can sign with four ~ (tildes) places next to each other. Victoria Primus 05:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Victoria joined Wikipedia to vote here. --Pjacobi 06:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Keep

I don't know what all this fuss is about. The original article is highly informative, accurate and factual. Anyone who has lived in India or experienced it first-hand would attest to this. Besides being chummy with Josef Stalin, Nehru did copy a lot of things from the Soviet model: central planning, 5-year plans, large dams, etc. Even waiting periods for telephone connections and ration shops are direct 'inspirations' from USSR. I am afraid somebody with a political axe to grind is out to delete this article, their action is in the true spirit of Communism: that is, muffle all dissenting voices. Eersj 05:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • First and only edit of this user. --Pjacobi 06:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
      • Dear Eersj welcome to wikipedia - I am sure that the wikipedia community will benefit from your other edits also, particulary on Indian economy of Nehru's time - it appears that you have very good personal experience of those time. By the way, please improve the present article to conform to wiki-standard, it is my personal appeal to you. By the way, it may be other way round - somebody with a political axe to grind is out to keep this article -you are sure of your opinion, but I am not: because I beleive that several persons have registered in a day or two to vote to keep this article for academic reasons, and not for political reasons. --Bhadani 07:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Adding comments
    • From a Thomas Sowell article

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell071201.asp Though the Indian statist leaders thought of themselves as looking out for the poor, their policies have been estimated to have held back economic development to the point where the average Indian's income would have been hundreds of dollars a year greater without their restrictions. In a country with millions of very poor people, some suffering from malnutrition, the loss of a few hundred dollars in annual income meant far more than it would have meant to the average American.

Like so many socialistic policies around the world, those in India were not relaxed or ended because of better understanding but because of bitter experience. When these policies had the Indian government on the verge of bankruptcy, its leaders had no choice but to make fundamental changes in the economy, in order to qualify for help from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

    • From an article by the highly respected historian, Paul Johnson:

http://www.forbes.com/business/global/2004/0621/016.html Under the socialist regime of Jawaharlal Nehru and his family successors the state was intolerant, restrictive and grotesquely bureaucratic. That has largely changed (though much bureaucracy remains), and the natural tolerance of the Hindu mind-set has replaced quasi-Marxist rigidity. Victoria Primus 05:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • keep

Contrary to what the original poster claims, this article and the term "Nehruvian-Stalinism" is an excellent summary of an important period in world history. There is absolutely no insignifance (sic) about this article. I appeal to Wikipedia not to cravenly cave in to these bullies. Drjayaraman 05:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • First and only edit of this user. --Pjacobi 06:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Keep

I am Indian citizen and have seen first hand how Nehruvian views are closely related with Stalinism. Factual errors in the article is not a sufficient reason to delete the article. This term makes perfect sense to someone who has witnessed the Nehruvian era.

  • Strong Keep I just came back to this page to see how the voting was going. Victoria, thank you for letting us know the key word is 'keep'. So here's my vote to keep this entry. I had previously posted 'Do not delete'. I agree with posters above that the term and the concept are meaningful. Charles Kingsley 06:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Second vote by user. Jayjg (talk) 07:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: As fully acknowledged by user. Charles Kingsley 164.164.81.4 02:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep

Insightful term Harihara 06:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 06:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • welcome Harihara - Your first edit to wikipedia perhaps? All the best, I am sure it will not be your last one.--Bhadani 07:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is just a political smear and the article is pure POV. Firebug 06:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 07:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The term represents an important era of Indian history. DemoCrat2005 09:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Strange this. Proto 11:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Proto 11:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT delete - Do not give in to politicians. There is no word other than Nehruvian-Stalinism to explain the same line of policies followed by Stalin and Nehru.

  • Unsigned vote by User:Georgethundi. He has made only 3 edits, all to this VFD. Can we get a sock check on all these new accounts? Either there are sockpuppets in play, or someone has been recruiting new voters from outside Wikipedia. Either way, this should not be allowed to determine the outcome of the consensus. Firebug 11:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Before it is held against me as a way to dilute my vote -- yes this is my first edit. But that does not mean I do not understand Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Similarities between Nehruism and Stalinism have always been a hot topic of discussion in Indian economics arena and this term has been standardised to refer to this system. This term is gaining usage on internet and Wikipedia is a perfect reference to explain what the meaning and connotation of Nehruvian-Stalinism is for the uninitiated. Aalu.paneer
    • We generally try to assume good faith, but this task is sometimes made difficult by numerous cases in which individuals have created numerous accounts under different names to vote multiple times. Your first edit on this site was to a deletion discussion, which is often considered suspicious due to the amount of abuse that has been committed on past discussions of this nature. By the way, deletion is not a straight vote; it is an attempt to reach consensus. I'm curious as to how you came across Wikipedia, and in particular, how you came across this deletion discussion. Were you asked to join this particular discussion by another participant? Firebug 12:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • All I can say is that is not my first edit on Wikipedia (although first under an ID). I understand the attempt at reaching concesus via discussion and that is why so many have joined it. The idea of cooling off for a while and then coming back sounds good. Though it seems the page has already been deleted. Sadly, Wikipedia seems to be turning into yabb where a archive loses out to editor's politics! On your question how I landed here, Google is your friend. My vote to Keep remains because this term was not "invented" on Wikipedia, has large usage in specific circles and needs a good reference for people needing introduction to it. Aalu.paneer
      • Hello dear aalu.paneer, I would love to welcome you – at least with your User ID, I am feeling jealous – beacause, as a vegetarian, I like the curry of aalu.paneer (http://indiabistro.com/menu.htm) – lol. At least, this article has assisted in registration of several new users to save the article, and welcome aboard the wikipedia. May be this article can be saved, if someone really try to save it by giving fresh inputs, along with voting for keep. I would request users to avoid using funny User IDs and dilute the santity of wikipedia. Thanks. --Bhadani 12:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Bhadani, not all users of Wikipedia are registered users or login and then contribute. I am glad to know that my alias, aalu paneer continues to make people smile. I do not know why you think it is a "funny" User ID, disrepectful to Wikipedia and did not know one needed a inane or "suits" types name to be considered seriously on Wikipedia! -- Aalu.paneer

Keep - This term refers to a number of blunders committed by Nehru, which caused a lot of famines, unemployment, wide-scale poverty, desertification of a lot of rural villages with no water for drinking and state monopoly in a number of industries. These blunders are the reasons why there is a huge migration of people from rural villages and towns towards cities, where the state created all the new jobs. In a way, this causes the creation of slums in most of the major cities, also leading to a lot of crime and anti-social behaviour. Indian media is controlled by a lot of communists and monority communities with their own vested interests in not letting the masses know about the ill effects of the state planning and the licence-permit-quota-raj and the creation of personality based politics. This is the reason why the Nehruvian-Stalinism term is not so widely referenced in a number of web sites and publications. By deleting this article, wikipedia will inadvertently side with these Vested Interests and endanger the suppression of the causes of millions of indians are still poor, from being popularised with the Indian masses. Only when the people know what they are suffering from, can they think and find a solution on how to eradicate those diseases that affect them and return to good health, literally, economically and philosophically. -- ksriram

    • User's second edit on Wikipedia (first was also on this VfD page) Proto 13:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This term refers to a number of blunders committed by Nehru, which caused a lot of famines, unemployment, wide-scale poverty, desertification of a lot of rural villages with no water for drinking and state monopoly in a number of industries. These blunders are the reasons why there is a huge migration of people from rural villages and towns towards cities, where the state created all the new jobs. That's nice. But it is pure POV and has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The term Nehruvian-Stalinism gets only 35 hits on Google. Frankly, it is possible for one or a few individuals to drum up that number of hits. It's absurd to claim that the Indian government is responsible for this poor showing; India is not a totalitarian state. You seem to think that this article should serve as a POV platform; that is precisely why I think it should be deleted. Firebug 12:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is now getting silly, I count 10 votes to keep, at least 7 of which are first ever edits by 'new users', and 2 anonymous ... can someone check IP addresses? Proto 13:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article. However, there is a need for balance and a more nuanced analysis to get beyond the usual Left-Right politics (which, imo is not enough to understand India). It is important that this article include concepts such as modernization & industrialization since these are unquestionably the most powerful & irresitable drivers of global societal change in the past 500 years; these concepts is crucial to understanding independent india since is is undeniable that indian modernization started in earnest post colonialism. Next, this article needs to explore how various societies/ civilizations around the world navigated through and coped with modernization/ industrialization. For example, Western Europe's modernization is associated with colonialism/ imperialism, massive migration to and subsequent genocide in the new world, slavery, apartheid, world wars, capitalist control economies. By contrast, Eastern Europe & China did not have the luxury or ability for large scale outbound emigrations, colonialism, imperialism etc. Therefore, in contrast to Western Europe, Eastern Europe and china turned inwards, adopted communism and ended up genociding their own people (those deemed unfit for modernization by some criteria). India's path to modernization was different (one that wanted every Indian to get on the modernization train, even if it meant that any indian could set up a paan shop in a hole in the wall or become a rickshaw puller) & Nehru should be seen as someone who represents a change agent for the modernization of india. If these changes cannot be made, then my suggestion would be to delete the article.
    • This is an unsigned vote by User:208.204.155.241. It is his 13th contribution. Firebug 17:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if only to stem the sockpuppet flood. - Mustafaa 21:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note a vote, but a humble observation. I have already voted above. I have been posting anonymously on Wikipedia for a long time, and from multiple IP addresses (as I travel a lot). This is the first time I have seen such a remarkable tussle about deleting an article. To the extent that I felt some pressure to create an id just so that I would be taken seriously here (although my personal preference would be to remain anonymous). If I were to summarize what I see here, it seems as though editor Bhadani has a clear personal axe to grind, for reasons that are not clear to me. A number of other responsible editors seem to have got caught up in what looks like an orchestrated campaign by Bhadani, clues to which show up in his fulsome thanks and praise of various editors who support his perspective. In response to this, it looks like a number of editors with the opposite perspective have jumped in, perhaps as first-time voters. Both sides are in the wrong. In other words, this looks like one of those sad tales of voting fraud you hear about in oh... India, the US (remember 'hanging chads'?), etc. I think the whole voting process has been compromised here. I would suggest a cooling-off period and a deferral of this vote. Why on earth is this such an earth-shakingly important issue? Socialism, Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, all of them have been shown to be frauds. All good for marketing purposes, but not for reality. Charles Kingsley on a proxy. 164.164.81.4 02:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • By the way, I was seventh to vote for delete - before me all have voted for delete. After, me most of the users have voted for Keep, only few have voted for delete: the normal conclusion should be, may be, my delete created more votes for keeps. I also do agree that a cooling period should be there so that the issue can be resolved in keeping with the highest wiki traditions. I can assure every one that I donot have any axe to grind. My edits numbering around 900 plus within five weeks may be seen to verify my inclinations. As regards travelling job -for years, I have been travelling also. Do travelling folks donot keep email IDs? What is wrong if one keeps a Wiki ID as well? To be nice to fellow wikipedians - is a wiki tradition, I have praised someone when there was not even a single keep vote, so that remark is out of context, perhaps. I have also welcomed all other new comers, who at least took the trouble to register to vote here. Bye and thanks. And, I am stepping aside from this issue, instead let me concentrate on other projects on wikipedia. --Bhadani 03:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Dear editor Bhadani, may I ask you to respect my right to post anonymously? Besides, I am glad we agree on something: a cooling-off period. Charles Kingsley 03:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As this may be overlooked in the vast amount of text written: The article is on VfD not because of factual inaccuracies (which in itself is not even a valid deletion argument), but because of being a neologism of insignifact usage. A encyclopedia describes terms which are in use, it doesn't try to invent new words or help inventors of neologisms to promote their case. --Pjacobi 12:54, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yashar Keramati

Unencyclopedic, two google matches. Delete. --SPUI (talk) 10:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, 2 Google matches from the same website - not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 12:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of Google hits do not appear to corroborate claims of 'leading' the protesters, and announcements of joining the UN after getting his law degree are premature, as from DOB he is currently 19. Average Earthman 12:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And at the age of 15 I became president of MENSA. *rolls eyes* Mo0[talk] 17:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 06:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as redirect. sjorford →•← 08:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yamada Takayuki

This is the same as Takayuki Yamada.Qazzx 10:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • {{sofixit}}. I've created the redirect; this does not require a deletion vote. Radiant_* 10:41, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. Good catch Radiant. Megan1967 12:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frozen treat

Delete Article explaining that a Frozen treat is a treat which is frozen, and some nonsense about them being best eaten warm. Do we need this? Given the vandalism-fest that 213.249.155.242 (contributions) was on at the time they created this article, I doubt it was seriously intended. Anilocra 12:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Freezing which covers frozen foods, such as ice cream. — RJH 14:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for silly content. Redirect iff the vandal shows up again and re-posts the article. --Idont Havaname 14:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Firebug 18:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't make a good redirect. --Carnildo 22:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikipedia has several articles that this can point to. Gazpacho 19:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Freezing as per RJH. This article adds no info. FreplySpang (talk) 19:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete while frozen treat seems a common enough term, Wikipipedia is not a cookbook and a frozen treat is hardly one of the worlds great dishes. Andypasto 08:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 02:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hog Molly

Small-time Seattle band that released one album in 2001, got a few good reviews, and then broke up for lack of inspiration. Most google hits are either for their mp3s - and really, making your mp3s available free online is not a good measure of notability - or for the fish of the same name. DS 12:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • The album they released - was it a physical album, or a bunch of MP3s on the internet? In the former case, weak keep; in the latter, strong delete. Radiant_* 13:15, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) Convinced by the below, so keep. Radiant_* 10:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: "a bunch of MP3s on the internet" doesn't necessarily mean lack of notability; see Lagoona, for example. These folks get 1640 Google hits to their name, and a listing on the BNR Metal Pages, a pretty well-respected online metal resource. Keep. --Idont Havaname 14:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--it was a physical album, released on a label (admittedly indie). Allmusic has an entry on them. They're pretty clearly notable, at least to me. Meelar (talk) 14:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable to Meelar Kappa 18:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm flattered. ;) Meelar (talk) 01:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep because it seems important to me too Yuckfoo 00:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets at least two Wikimusic Project guidelines in that they have completed at least one national tour and contains Tad Doyle formerly of Tad who were well known in the 1990's Seattle scene and friends with Nirvana. see article [7] Capitalistroadster 02:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. --Myles Long 16:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Braun

Non-notable college student's vanity entry. I advise deletion. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • College student / recent grad, lives with his girlfriend, can't spell "fraturnity" or "everybodies"... vanity! Delete. --Idont Havaname 14:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He can't spell fraternity, which makes me sad. :( Mo0[talk] 17:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. College student vanity. Average Earthman 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another vanity article of a non-notable college student . Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. (An English major wrote this?) android↔talk 01:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I used to share a house with a high school English teacher and the reminder notes she used to leave for housemates were some of the worst spelling and grammar bloopers I've ever seen. It happens. Megan1967 07:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was THAT MANY CATS IS MORE THAN WE CAN HANDLE. Unless they do tricks. Postdlf 02:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 25 Cats Named Sam (band)

  • Local Edinburgh punk band. Two released albums. Very little in the way of relevant Google traffic. Any attestations of notability are welcome. Slac speak up! 13:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason to call them notable. Typical band vanity. Their official site does not even come up on the first page of Google hits for the band name, unless you Google it without the spaces (and get only 27 results). Delete. --Idont Havaname 14:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated above. Mo0[talk] 17:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Band Vanity Dsmdgold 18:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Jayjg (talk) 05:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Master Thief Garrett 05:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. – Quoth 05:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suzue Saito

Google gets about 8 hits. Seems like she's only notable within her organization (and even that feels shakey)--InShaneee 14:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. No LexisNexis hits either, for what that's worth. CDC (talk) 20:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Works for UNICEF - which would sound good, except I'm sure a lot of people work for UNICEF, and her title doesn't sound that high up the organisation. Average Earthman 22:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyrarchy

Non-encyclopedic; band that has not yet released its first album, does not appear to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I suggested on the talk page of User:Hyrarchy that the page be userfied, but got no response; user has continued to work on it in article space. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious self-promotion. Userfication is inappropriate, as this article is not about the individual writing it. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. —Korath (Talk) 15:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • But...but...but...they played a talent show in April, how noteworthy can you get? Delete —Wahoofive (Talk) 16:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A talent show? Oh, the horror! Delete. Mo0[talk] 17:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Notability and Music Guidelines. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established, band vanity. Megan1967 07:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I moved it to my userpage. Back off people, delete the damned thing. And "Wahoofive", your just a prick. Sorry for wanting to show my band off. Jesus Christ, like it makes much difference of one page we put up here is killing your whole database.(Yes I know NOW that it doesn't go with policy, but I did not originally). And being an ass about it does not make things any better Wahoofive.~Hyrarchy~
    • I'm sorry wikipedia can't let you show your band off, but I hope you understand why. I also apologize that sometimes our sense of humor can seem insensitive. Kappa 19:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is fine. But for the two above, that made the rude comments...it's still not very polite to make fun of people. I don't go around bashing people for what they did. And this "talent" show was a rather large one in Florida, not a popsicle stand. Actually competing for $5,000. You can make fun of that if you want, but I don't find it humorous when people are striving for something.Hyrarchy
  • Comment - If you're gonna be that thin-skinned about criticism and sarcasm, let me kindly suggest that you ditch the music biz. Seriously. Soundguy99 17:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:19, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RepublicofStrathclyde

Micronation vanity. As the "nation"'s website states, it celebrated its 3rd independence day in 2004, and it has the population of 5 people. Not notable, delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Microcruft. -- 8^D gab 16:38, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who are you? Mo0[talk] 17:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fiction/private game. Average Earthman 19:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations. RickK 20:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete micronations. Jayjg (talk) 05:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 07:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, erm internet country. El_C 07:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The last King of Strathclyde died more than 1000 years ago, and there's no evidence of any kind of republican secession since. One website maketh not a fact. The only micronation in Scotland worthy of a wikipedia article is that ruled by the ever entertaining Robbie the Pict. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which has already been implemented by User:RedWolf. Postdlf 01:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Possible successors to Pope John Paul II

Delete, Now that the new pope is elected this Category should be deleted. Candidates who were considered are mentioned in the following article. Papal conclave, 2005 --DuKot 17:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD log; adding today. --cesarb 16:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree. That article mentions all the former papabiles. D. G. 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete'. Now there is only one successor, and no "possbile successors". 2005 conclave article will remember who the other possibilites were judged to have been sufficiently. Rlquall 01:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid nomination. Categories should go to CFD, not VFD. Please withdraw your nomination here and nominate it for deletion there. --cesarb 16:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We might need a Category:Possible successors to Pope Benedict XVI, though. — JIP | Talk 17:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as invalid nomination → CFD —msh210 17:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The speculation as to who would succeed Pope John Paul II is itself a notable historic fact. I don't see it on the referenced Papal conclave page. (see below) -- 8^D gab 18:16, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Delete,I can't seem to edit the CFD entry on my browser.The Ben XVI Successors category is already up,I've migrated some JP II successors younger than a couple I already saw there to the new one.A rename would be inappropriate though,as anyone older than Benedict no longer is viable.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 01:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Save the data!

Since I can't find any discussion on CFD, I'm writing this here; if I've overlooked a better spot, would somebody please copy? Thanks.

Before this category is permanently consigned to the electro-magnetic dustbin of history, somebody should check to make sure that everybody listed in it is included in List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave. Doops 19:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I have added the three names to the list that were in the Category but not on the list. Since the list of papabili now contains all of the same information, I am changing my vote to Delete. -- 8^D gab 20:35, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • As the criteria for deletion in CfD is weaker for empty categories whose information has laready been put elsewhere, if it passes deletion on VfD and is empty, it can be speedy deleted from Cfd. (I notice, however, it isn't empty, so either someone will have to empty it, or the bot on Cfd will eventually get around to it.) --ssd 04:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree. IMO emptying it before the vote closes on CfD does not violate Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#How to use this page point #4, as there's a strong consensus to delete both there and here, and that makes it "uncontroversial" IMO. Just so long as we all now know the procedures, and the crowd who hang out on CfD (and know the pitfalls of category deletion best) have had a chance to look at what's happening, I'm happy. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - the info should be elsewhere, either Papal conclave, 2005 or otherwise. We don't have categories for "Possible US presedential candidates 1788", or "Possible League Of Nations Secretaries]] or other historical elections. Now that this Papal election is historical, the same argument applies. --Bletch 16:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romy

Vanity about a poster on a now-defunct message forum. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete obvious message board vanity. --InShaneee 18:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 07:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, posted by someone with a grudge who obviously takes message boards too seriously. Gheorghe Zamfir 01:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non Notable what are the chances that someone is going to come in here and enter "Romy" into the search box. even if they were good this article is a personal attack and thierfore should be deleted.Deathawk 22:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete!: I think this is a valuable tool on the dangers of message board obsession. Let this be a lesson to all who think that message boards actually equate to real human interaction. Don't be a Romy!
  • Delete, along with a motion to direct the author to Urban Dictionary. --BDD 13:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:20, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green Gorilla

This organisation might be notable and stuff, but the article as written is a blatant advertisement.

NOTE: this discussion page refers to this wiki entry as if they were wanting it to evolve into an article sort of like Greenpeace. Perhaps they weren't as ad-minded as it appears? Looks like they might have had good intentions. Master Thief Garrett 23:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless it can be rewritten. — JIP | Talk 17:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement. I get fairly few relevant Google hits. --InShaneee 18:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly well-intentioned wikispam, speedied once already but should go through VfD this time. See also Green Alliance. Andrewa 22:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, promo. Megan1967 07:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, promo, POV ("we", "our"). Probably could be interesting content, but right now... just advertising with the sort of wording you'd expect on the company's "about us" page. Strange. Master Thief Garrett 23:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to just be a website of unknown origin (no contact details). No evidence of any significant organisation behind it. Andypasto 09:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Counter-Strike hacks

Delete. Unencyclopedic (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DOOM cheats), name is NPOV (popular according to who?). If info is worth keeping, it belongs on Counter-Strike page. -- 8^D gab 17:57, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. This article is merely linkspam. We already have Cheating in Counter-Strike, anyway (which is also a bit excessive IMHO). --InShaneee 18:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Game hacks may deserve a mention in the main article, but not an article of their own, unless they've achieved special fame aside from the game itself (like the Konami Code). Not only that, but this article is poorly written and unencyclopedic in tone and form. "WORD OF WARNING! Many of these hacks will contain malware, steal your cd keys, passwords, credit card information, abuse your webcam and destroy your computer! Anti-virus software cannot protect you from this! Additionally, getting caught cheating usually means being banned from the entire Steam network! Absolutely only use these links at your own risk!" Just what we need. Firebug 19:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am well aware of this. The problem is that an article like Cheating in Counter-Strike tends to attract kiddies. The article is merely there to channel the urges of the kiddies into something productive, instead of vandalizing the main article with links. Leave it, eventually it'll become something better looking than this current, ugly linkspam. I don't like it either but I prefer this over having people (kiddies) lay waste on the main article. Dabljuh 19:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • While I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure that is a valid reason for keeping this article. It seems to me a bit too much like capitulating to vandals. Firebug 21:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Firebug (predictably, I'm sure, since I nominated). Fear of vandalism on the main article is a poor justification for keeping a non-notable offshoot written in a wholly unencyclopedic manner. We can protect the main article itself well enough. -- 8^D gab 21:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
        • Concur with that. Delete and protect the cheating article when/if necessary. Radiant_* 10:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
          • I understand that the article isn't a nice sight, but I'm pretty sure it can be made to look more encyclopedic and professional if I / someone else finds time to update it. Originally someone updated the main article with this content, and I didn't want to erase it since somebody told me he found it valuable. On the other hand, it already has been vandalized, which probably took off some destructive energy from the main article? The section vandalized is interesting: Most cheaters don't realize the most common reason public cheats are released are to get passwords. Dabljuh 20:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs, and not a place to post cheats and hacks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Destroy all gamecruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the fact that Dabljuh explained his/her motivation. I don't think that makes enough reason to compromise our mission or standards. Delete and let the regular anti-vandalism processes work. Rossami (talk) 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Carnildo 22:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Who needs to cheat anyway? - Longhair | Talk 16:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trivia/howto CDC (talk) 23:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so the article will be kept as a default. Postdlf 01:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clover Park High School

Non-notable high school. Delete. Firebug 18:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable, POV article. --InShaneee 18:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, coverage of troubled schools is exactly what wikipedia should be providing. Kappa 18:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why? Gamaliel 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Problems like gangs, sexual harrasment and gun violence in schools are part of the "sum of all human knowledge" we are trying to accumulate. Kappa 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • And that calls for substantial articles about gangs, sexual harrasment and gun violence, not articles on random schools which merely mention such things in passing. Gamaliel 22:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • The school article ties these problems to a geographic location where they are extant. Klonimus 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Suppose it was a substantial school article which described its problems and attempted solutions in depth? Kappa 23:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Are you asking if I would vote keep? If the article was truly substantial, with verifiable information and sources cited, then that would certainly be a strong factor in its favor. Gamaliel 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that troubled schools are somehow more encyclopedic than non-troubled schools? RickK 20:09, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, covering them is more important. Kappa 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Wikpedia is not here for the purposes of advocacy. Your comment is tantamount to saying that we should be covering bands with no record contracts more than bands with record contracts. RickK 21:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'd think of it as covering villages with serious problems more than average villages. Kappa 22:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Lakewood, Washington article. After all, how many children at the school don't live there? Average Earthman 19:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:BEEFSTEW of 2 (A,B). Not to mention the improper trolling for votes. —Korath (Talk) 19:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue to expand. High schools should not have to prove notability. It seems somewhat elitist when the richy-rich Stuyvesant High Schools out there get to have articles, but your regular middle-class high school isn't considered good enough. It is a public institution and more notable than the British train stations. (And I didn't get this by reading GRider's page, I monitor the VfDs; but is someone's opinion who gets it from there less valid than ours? How about the person who hears about it from WP:W?) --BaronLarf 20:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Once again, someone confuses Wikipedia with the Special Olympics, where every article is special and it's "elitist" to draw distinctions about worthiness and quality. Standards?!? Who needs them? --Calton | Talk 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If we set standards only by school quality, we end up with the top 2% and the occasional scene of a shooting incident. How does that represent the real range of schools to the user? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It is not supposed to. Representing the typical is the job of general articles. An article on American High Schools could contain such information, or an article on American eduction could. Furthermore, unremarkable schools could be mentioned on a town page or even perhaps a school district page. It is just plain silly to claim that not having an article on every single school in the world would mean that no information on typical schools could exist on wikipedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to highlight and synthesize. Indrian 19:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • An article on American High Schools would be too generic unless it included specific examples. I'm not saying we need articles on every single school in the world, but we do need scope for representative examples of all types. Kappa 06:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Would you extend this to other types of articles? How about articles on representative examples of people? I could write an article about my plumber. Gamaliel 06:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Unfortunately your plumber is unlikely to cross even a minimal bar of verifiability and significance to his/her local community or plumbing in general. Kappa 06:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • In my opinion, a better parallel is the inclusion of every city, town, village and Census Designated Place on Wikipedia. There are far more of those than there are high schools, plus there is no debate about whether Bee Cave, Texas is notable. This, despite the fact that the city of Bee Cave has only 656 people, less than most high schools.--BaronLarf 18:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
              • If people are so obsessed with notability then just merge the damn high school page into the local town page. Towns are unquestionably notable, and high schools are unquestionably significant in terms of their local town. However, this page has so much information that it deserves it's own page as a "subpage" of the city of Lakewood. So after you merge it, you are gonna have to unmerge it. :-) In other words, just keep the page. Incidentally, I think I've just proven the inherent significance of any school page that is larger then a stub. - Pioneer-12 19:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete High schools are not notable by simply being. Is Spring Valley High School notable? How can it be since it just opened. I have no problem with any school being included if it stands on its own as deserving an entry. This is not a class or rich vs. poor issue. If there is a question, tag it cleanup-importance and if nothing happens delete it. Vegaswikian 21:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing special.Saopaulo1 21:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, this please it seems special to me Yuckfoo 21:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Invalid nomination. --Gene_poole 23:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wait, let me guess: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ergo it is encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Good to see the message is getting through.--Gene_poole 03:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Calton, you are starting to understand inclusionism, Klonimus 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Yeah, either the message that you're as thick as two short planks or that you have no shame about employing rhetorical fallacies. For details, see Beg the question.
          • And speaking of two, where's your pal Centauri? Shouldn't he be here fighting the good fight? --Calton | Talk 11:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • By your own reasoning, your own vote would be invalid since it doesn't have a valid reasoning behind it. Yes, I realize the paradox there :)
  • Delete In accordance with Wikipedia's notability policies and Jimbo's wishes. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you think Jimbo wishes for good articles on "non-notable" schools to be deleted? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable high school. Jonathunder 01:18, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Keep in accordance with Jimbo's wishes. [8] This school does appear to be notable for reasons of campus violence, although notability is not a requirement for inclusion. —RaD Man (talk) 01:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • My interpretation is that Jimbo is somewhat non-committal about stubs Kappa 11:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jimbo was clearly talking about allowing exceptions, not about something becoming the rule, and the continual brandishing of his quote as if it meant the latter is straight-up intellectual dishonesty. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • ...or maybe not. "Non-notability" s not a valid deletion criteria. --Gene_poole 03:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If he was talking about making exceptions, what would he make exceptions for? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Speak of the Devil and who should appear? Hey, Perry Mason, you seem to have mistaken the VfD process for a court of law. --Calton | Talk 11:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It absolutely is, and a number of policies deal precisely with notability. Jayjg (talk) 05:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, so now we are debating the interpretation of the Words of our Creator. What's next, the CathoPedia declares war on the RevoPedia? Radiant_* 10:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a stub about a perfectly average school with discipline problems. I wish we could say that were unusual. It's not. Delete. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What if it were more than a stub? Kappa 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable topic. El_C 07:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Lakewood, Washington and delete - Skysmith 08:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per low BEEFSTEW score. Radiant_* 10:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:GRider's edits make a new WP:BEEFSTEW score of 4 (A, B, E, G (though barely - [9])). --bainer 13:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable discipline problems at a notable school. Klonimus 13:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That article could describe any high school in the United States. That students and parents have expressed concerns is subjective on their part and unquantifiable on ours. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What is not subjective but is notable is the fact that the school received a federal grant allowing "students who have been victimized or participated in violence to receive therapy" from counselors. What is quantifiable is that students and parents have these very real concerns and that the school district has addressed them. As a parent myself, I sincerely value such information and sleep better knowing that Wikipedia hosts it. —RaD Man (talk) 07:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing notable about this, which is yet another school. The JPS 00:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools are important. Oliver Chettle 02:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this school article deserves improvement.  ALKIVAR™ 09:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:57, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another generic school. Unfortunately, being plagued by gang violence does not make a school notable as this is a common problem. Indrian 19:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Houshuang
  • Keep. GRider's improvements have made this well and truly worthy of retention. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are worthy of note, and this is a well-written article. If I were looking up information on schools and discovered that Wikipedia contained an entry for a high school I attended some years ago, I would be extremely impressed with the depth of information and level of detail in Wikipedia. I would shout from the rooftops "WIKIPEDIA IS THE GREATEST ENCYCLOPEDIA EVER!" We are better off having this article. - Pioneer-12 12:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable CDC (talk) 23:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Master Thief Garrett 01:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Pioneer12 and Capitalistroadster.--Jacobw 18:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is subjective. Wikipedia is not improved by the removal of school articles. ~leif ☺ (talk) 20:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a very nice article. Better than 90% of the stuff I get when I hit the random page button.--Heathcliff 02:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Topic is notable: data interesting (because having more than 50% minorities means well, the majority isn't really present, is it?) How do you expect it to grow out of non notability if you keep pressing to delete it? It has the capacity to grow out of non notability. Plus, I disagree with the notion that it is not distinguished from the countless other schools around the world, because you realise, that in China, the student mindset would be different, there is no reduced lunch, the syllabus would be different, or in Singapore, having much more different sets of characteristics than US schools, or even within the US itself. If I made an article about some relatively unknown species just discovered in the Amazon Rainforest, much of detail yet to be discovered, its report printed in a small section of some scientific journal among thousands of others, in the same family as another species, are you what, going to delete it for having non notable information? Even before the article has a chance to evolve?...
Yet according to the Tree of Life project, Wikipedia doesn't mind documenting each and every species. Because notability can be established, can become notable research information, when networked, overviewed in conjunction with other articles, if you let it live. Its genome would be different, there would be lessons to learn, no matter how small, and then its important for say, genetic statistics, research, confirmation, checking for codon exceptions, etc. In the same way, schools are an important part of demographics, no matter how non notable it is now. Would you object to Wikipedia storing the genome (taken from DNA databases) of every species if it had people bothered? Isn't the record of such evolution of the individual nucleotides and its analyses valuable, even though it seems small? Should we omit a point from a circle in our mathematical drawings because its only one point out of an infinite number? Yet we don't. Why then object to having this article exist for demographical purposes? The NPOV problems can be fixed. It has a chance to be proliferate into something of note. Why do have articles every day of the year, even into the future, or documentation of every possible enzyme there is in life? Isn't it possible that a string of non notable things can be used in analysis into something of note? And isn't it true that the patterns can be so diverse they need their own individual articles? Isn't it possible, that gasp, something event might happen that links two relatively minor things into a big one? And if the article existed beforehand, it would have been easier to correlate when something did happen. One article about a seemingly insignificant thing, when linked and correlated with other articles to show similar concepts, or trends, patterns, for cross reference and such, then extending this depth to possibly many others because of the links? -- Natalinasmpf 02:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Amen. This article enhances the information value of every page that links to it, and every page that will link to it in the future. I think that: if a topic is a common link between two or more notable topics, then that topic becomes notable as a result of it's association with those topics, and that a page should probably exist for that mutually shared topic. Ergo, if two significant people go to a school, then that school becomes notable as a common link, a shared bond. - Pioneer-12 08:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So uh, conclusion? Anybody? -- Natalinasmpf 13:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable school with notable alumni. Tallyman 15:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Those contributors who really want to recreate it as a redirect to love-bite are free to do so. Postdlf 01:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lovemark

Poorly written article about an obscure term. "Official" website is dead. Delete. --Sn0wflake 18:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism.--InShaneee 18:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Love-bite. Megan1967 10:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Love-bite. Strange, the website works for me! Looks to me like an advertising campaign based on Love-bites. So maybe someone could add a Trivia section there? Somethng like "this term inspired this marketing campaign" or whatnot. Master Thief Garrett 00:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War of Brazil

Delete; as far as I can tell, this page is complete fiction. RussBlau 18:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fiction. From what I recall, there was internal conflict in Colombia in the first three years of the 20th century, Peru in 1914, and Brazil declared war on Germany in 1917. Otherwise, South America was pretty quiet in the 1900-1920 period, and Rio Grande do Sul is definitely still in Brazil. Average Earthman 19:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete alternate history. The poster may want to look at Wikicites Alternative History. RickK 20:14, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE - Total Fabrication Saopaulo1 21:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fantasy. Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 07:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Invented history. El_C 07:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • God damn. When I read that yesterday, I believed it, because it's done so cleanly and professionally and plausibly. DELETE, and consider blocking the page creator's IP as a vandal. DS 16:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Note that two of the major events took place on April 1. --Carnildo 22:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary McKee

Looks like a lonely stub of questionable value that needs a lot of attention. I don't think the subject of the article (a retired radio DJ) merits the article as it stands now, and I don't think there's much potential for expansion. Feco 20:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. Can I get a page? I had my own radio show, I was even the station manager... in college. Vegaswikian 21:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge very cut down version with WQXI (AM). I wasn't sure, but looking at the WQXI article... does Atlanta really have that many AM radio stations? Wouldn't make someone on one of them that notable, then. Average Earthman 22:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto, not notable. I checked the radio hall of fame and found no listing.--Stockwell 06:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 01:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chevrolet Nubira (formerly Daewoo Nubira)

the article reads like a copy/paste direct from the car dealer's marketing brochure. I did a quick check for copyvio and couldn't find a source, but I think the article as it stands now is blatant advertising. Feco 20:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep. Good topic, and some useful content. Certainly needs work, but not deletion. Andrewa 22:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've tried to rework it to make it sound more encyclopdic. -- Lochaber 09:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • + comment if this article is kept it should probably be moved to Chevrolet Nubira because AFAIK all Daewoo cars have now been rebranded as Chevrolet. -- Lochaber 09:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: In Australia the brand and all models vanished from the new car market at the end of 2004, but there are still plenty of Daewoo Nubiras on the road here, while the only Chevs of any sort are personal imports, unlikely for this model IMO. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a brochure copy, contains incorrect info on hatchback/station wagon versions (sorry Lochaber). DmitryKo 10:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Daewoo (and Chevrolet) don't sell all models in all markets. I don't know USA policies, but I've seen new Daewoo Nubira cars in the last year, and the only Daewoo-built Chevies I've seen have been smller models than this midsize sedan. No vote. Barno 15:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Daewoo Nubira, Chevrolet Nubira, Chevrolet Lacetti sedan, Chevrolet Optra and Suzuki Forenza are exactly the one same car (the same applies to Daewoo Lacetti which is known as Chevrolet Lacetti/Optra5 and Suzuki Reno).

Since the Daewoo brand is dropped now, I moved Daewoo Nubira to Chevrolet Nubira. DmitryKo 18:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It seems to me that, despite some mentions of other markets, this article is now very US-centric. This model was originally sold as a Daewoo, worldwide, and in some markets has no other name. The Daewoo factory remains its source, while the Chevrolet connection is pure badging. IMO, for the article to now be headed by the current US model name is embarrassing, and I would move it back. If the Chevrolet model deserves its own article, write one. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Chevrolet Nubira is not an US name (Suzuki Forenza is), and I wouldn't want to see dozen one-string articles of XXX is what Daewoo Nubira is called in YYY pattern when Daewoo brand is dropped everywhere but Korea. DmitryKo 16:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course not. The correct thing is to have redirects from any other significant names for the model. And if it's also still called a Daewoo in Korea, ISTM even more that this is the best name for the article, but see talk:Chevrolet Nubira. Also please note that the VfD notice requests that moves do not take place during a vote. Andrewa 17:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with Andrewa on all three points. Barno 15:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep & cleanup. Automobiles usually pass the (low) bar for of notability. Shimmin 17:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an important article on an automoblie, and should stay. User:NewGuy4
  • Keep. Cars sold in a major or medium sized market by a major company are notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Siefert

  • Delete: Because this guy is NOT a professor... he is a Graduate student. The article is either a joke or an attempt of self-promotion. For proof, see http://www.cse.uiuc.edu/~siefert/ --Ragib 21:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Addendum: The IP from which the article (128.174.243.21) resolves to csta-pce1.cs.uiuc.edu , the guys department network. QED
  • Delete for lying and not being notable. The lack of any dates should make anyone suspicious, even without Ragib already having seen through the deception. Average Earthman 22:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd guess it's a bad joke at his expense, posted by a disgruntled and/or drunk student. For a more likely cv of the victim, see this PDF (32KB). We should have some system of blanking this sort of thing while VfD takes its course. Andrewa 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: On reflection, I've stubified this article. The previous contents were slanderous. The resulting stub IMO is an improvement in terms of the deletion policy, but it's still a candidate for deletion, so no change of vote. Andrewa 01:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible in-house joke... Master Thief Garrett 03:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shatty man

This looks like some kind of forum/clan/private group thing of which (according to the article) there has only been 1 episode. 'Shatty Man' gets 4 Google hits. Looks totally non-notable. David Johnson [T|C] 20:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Test by anon with no previous contributions. The Shatty Crew was formed by fff1, and only has one member, known as superguy141. superguy141 is also fff1's brother. Their ages are unknown. The Shatty Crew are hoping to grow as large as the Clock Crew, but will most likely fail. Article is an unwikified orphan, and not to be taken too seriously IMO. Andrewa 22:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 22:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Collins.mc 00:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Megan1967. — JIP | Talk 07:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above, kill! kill! kill! Master Thief Garrett 03:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frankenstein monster

Article duplicates information already presented in Frankenstein and alternative spellings such as Frankenstein's Monster already redirect to Frankenstein. Suggest merge anything new and redirect to Frankenstein. 23skidoo 21:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Just to be clear, I know that the name of the Monster is not "Frankenstein", however the main article provides the same essential plot synopsis and overview of the character that is being presented in Frankenstein monster, and goes on to include a fairly detailed discussion of the character's appearances in other media. 23skidoo 21:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Frankenstein. Gazpacho 22:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. (You could have been bold and just done it yourself. Redirects are reversible and do not need to be discussed on VfD. If the redirect turns out to be controversial, concensus should be sought on the respective Talk pages, not here.) Rossami (talk) 05:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From past experience I've learned deletion of this sort needs to be discussed here as I got in trouble for "being bold" in this way once before. Better safe than sorry. 23skidoo 14:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you do not wish to be bold, bring it up on the article's discussion page first. If you desire some outcome other than deletion, VFD is not the place to bring the complaint. Shimmin 17:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] N.O.B

Another un-signed band. Article claims the band formed within the past week. No allmusic listing. Niteowlneils 22:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS Just noticed the article's creator claims to be one of the band's members, making it autobiographical. Niteowlneils 22:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, autobiographical vanity OR false info (if he isn't really who he says he is), not notable, sorry kids, but that's showbusiness for ya! Master Thief Garrett 03:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gelli-ball

As far as I can tell this is a game invented and exclusively played by one group of people. Not notable or encyclopedic. David Johnson [T|C] 22:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 05:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability presented. Only two Google hits; one irrelevant, and the other one to Wikipedia Votes for Deletion (!). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Google links back to "us"(!). Sounds fun, but, sorry, no. Unless we launch "Wikigamerules". Master Thief Garrett 03:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, Keep it, i mean only someone desperat would create, post it and also i tried it and spread it to my whole neighborhood... Ultimate Bob

DON'T DELETE. I know the guy who invented it. Sure, only our school plays it, but it is really fun.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Berndt

Vanity. Pretty sure it fails the Music Notability Test. All I found for hits on google is the guy's main website. Guessing he's a local session musician. --Woohookitty 22:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pretty much fails the Notability Test, vanity, fancruft perhaps. Master Thief Garrett 03:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Velena Doty

Google only brings up wikipedia results; if she were real, there would certainly be mention of her. Furthermore, any mention of her should be removed from James Doty who is actually a real person. --Golbez 22:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, might be real but unknown (if she's merely James' wife/daughter/etc.) but probably made up. Master Thief Garrett 03:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Seselwa 22:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • A truly insane article, unencyclopedic, pandering to fundamentalists, POV. What more to say? —Seselwa 22:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Javier Solana is a pretty short article, and everything about him should be put there. at the moment there is no link between that and this article, so it would seem the consent is not to include any info about it. Solana himself stated monday "some American neoconservatives" are hostile to the constitution because it marked "a new rise in Europe's power." [10] may be the basis of a beast free discussion of this subject, --SqueakBox 00:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE!!! I'm offended - are Europeans soooo special that they get to have the Antichrist? Obviously the Antichrist will be an American. Also, despite the concededly insane premise, the article strikes me as rather NPOV - merely presenting a theory to which some hold, rather than a declaration of certain truth. -- 8^D gab 00:36, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Delete --Golbez 04:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. The reason it is NPOV is because nobody who even thinks it might be a possibility that Solana is the antichrist has contributed (there were some reverted edits) so of course it is NPOV, --SqueakBox 00:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Wikipedia is not a message board for fundamentalist Christian conspiracy theories. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete On second thought this is not a research paper. WP:What Wikipedia is not.--Cool Cat My Talk 06:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 07:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While even dribbling lunatic theories are worthy of encyclopedia articles if there are sufficient dribbling lunatics to believe them (e.g. Flat Earth Society), this one would appear to have rather a relative lack of adherents. Average Earthman 09:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 09:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete if we can. Some crackpot. And I second the "soapbox" comment. I don't know how else to describe what's so wrong with this, but just... just... get it away from me! Looks like a looney, I hope he never ascends to control the stuff it says he will. Oh, and, again, interesting Armageddon stuff, but WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Master Thief Garrett 03:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could this not be rewritten into a less-paranoid, less-insane non-rant about the (admittedly insane) belief that Javier Solana is the Antichrist? A Man In Black 10:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Isn't that like writing an article about how many believe there was a second JFK gunman? You see my point. Ideally this wouldn't exist even when rewritten. Him being called the Antichrist is a matter of opinion (although not as narrow and reduced as a truly POV article by one or two people is) but similarly it's potentially a crysal-ball article. By the time we truly find out if he's the Antichrist or not, the world will have fallen into chaos as the Four Horsemen ride across the battlefields etc. by which point Wikipedia won't exactly be very important any more. Or if he dies first. Whichever. Master Thief Garrett 12:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm. I was considering the possibility that this was a widespread phenomenon (notable in the same way that, say, Timecube is), but after some investigation, it really seems to be a couple of wackos. Delete. A Man In Black 07:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • One other possibility is to merge into a "List of famous people whose names add up to 666" or some such thing. Individually, 50+ famous Jewish-descended people could have their names coincidentally add up to 666, and I don't think each and every one deserves his (or her, let's not be sexist here, Jesus might return as a Jessica!) own article. Heck, people *still* think Kissinger's the Antichrist, and yet the Bible says that the Antichrist will "emerge", indicating that before that point he is an unknown/non-noteworthy. Therefore, I don't know that *this* person has a chance any more than poor Kissinger does... but I digress... Master Thief Garrett 12:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Uggh, utter rubbish, POV and just bad use of the encylopedia. Goferwiki 23:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I think what some people have been missing is that the beast believers aren't interested in this article; they are interested in Javier Solana, --SqueakBox 04:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Are we going to have Antichrist Allegations pages for all prominent figures who have been called the Antichrist by cranks? Firebug 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reference to actually how many people believe this theory, original research. I am transwikiing this to Conwiki. silsor 09:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; wow. — Davenbelle 18:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep -- the article was meant as a neutral portrayal of an insane belief, and it can do that job still. I don't see how this belief is more insane than, say, the belief that an archangel dictated both the book of Mormon and the Qur'an, that the pope is infallible, or that wafers turn into Jesus' flesh during mass, beliefs that are all duly portrayed on Wikipedia. The question is not, is the belief insane, but is it notable. And the standard of sufficient notability on Wikipedia seems to be GNAA. dab (ᛏ) 06:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that the examples you mentioned are believed by a significant number of people and are the doctrine of many ancient churches. I don't understand why you make this flawed comparison. —Seselwa 13:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 01:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blackamoor

The offensive term "Blackamoor" can never be more than a dictionary definition. The other information here can go elsewhere.

  • Strong keep. A very good article could easily be written on this subject, covering, for example the historic origins of the term during the crusades, and its wide use in heraldry, the theatre and impact on everything from the public imagination to the African slave trade.--Gene_poole 23:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • We already cover the heraldic figure in Maure. We already cover the people in Moors and the racial category in Moors (meaning). Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. Check out [11] for the kinds of possibilities. -- Mwanner 23:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • See above. Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Comments These are random factoids. No vote yet. Just poking around here. a) AHD4 does characterize the term as "offensive." b) The word has no entry in the Britannica 11th, and apparently (based on 1911encyclopedia.org's search feature) appears only once, in an article about the artist Il Moretto, who was known as "The Blackamoor. c) "Blackamoor" does seem to be the standard name in heraldry. d) An online search of Shakespeare's plays turns up only three instances; I thought it would be in Othello, but it is not. e) A general Google search on "blackamoor" suggests that it can't really be all that offensive; it's used in a wide variety of ways; perhaps it is sufficiently old that the statute of limitations on offensiveness as expired. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments There is a decent article on Moors. The word blackamoor is a synonym at best. If this article were about the *word* blackamoor that would be one thing, but using the word as a noun to refer to people is not on.
  • An article on the historic origins of the term and its use in the various contexts is exactly the kind of information I would expect to find in a truly excellent unabridged dictionary - not an encyclopedia. Transwiki to Wiktionary which does not yet have this definition. (Whatever decision is made should also apply to the redirect blackamoor.) Rossami (talk) 05:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • An article on the historic origins of the term and its use in the various contexts is exactly the kind of information I would expect to find in a truly excellent unabridged dictionary ... like Wiktionary:blackamoor, you mean? ☺ Uncle G 12:07, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
      • Keep as rewritten. And thank you for also adding the Wiktionary article. Rossami (talk) 23:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We already cover the other things called Blackamoor in other articles. The only remaining thing called Blackamoor is a town. Keep simply because this is a mess (which I've attempted to tidy up a bit — see Moor, Moors, Moors (meaning), Maure, and Blackamoor), and having an article here stops it from becoming messier. Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable blackness. Klonimus 13:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in present form as rewritten by Uncle G. I still don't know how to create a link that will be locked onto the specific revision that is currently the latest 07:28, 22 Apr 2005, but I am referring to the article that is about the town, references Moors and Maure, and links to the very good Wiktionary entry Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The English town is hardly more notable than the heraldic depiction of an African. Perhaps blackamoor should be a disambig page. Shimmin 17:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • I felt a little guilty about removing the one sentence about Sardinia from here. So I went and expanded Maure from sources. It turns out that there's quite a bit to say about the heraldic figure. So whilst what you say might be true, it's not as damning as you may have thought. ☺ Uncle G 18:28, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • The town should be at Blackamoor, Lancashire. Blackamoor should be a disambig page pointing to Blackamoor, Lancashire, Moors, Maure and Moors (meaning). Any text involving the history of the word "blackamoor" can be included in Moors (meaning). Dsmdgold 20:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this because it is important Yuckfoo 00:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real village in Lancashire with community of interest. Well done Uncle G. for your work on this article. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Espinosa

Non-notable activist. "Ivan Daniel Espinosa" gets zero Google hits. "Ivan Espinosa" +HDGE gets three hits. "Helping Democrats Get Elected" only gets 51 hits, and that's for ALL of its chapters, not just the one Ivan runs. RickK 22:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, doesn't pass the "average activist" test. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Master Thief Garrett 03:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Quale 23:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Konrad_Branicki

Obvious vanity page with no meaningful content at all - Delete. Windchaser 23:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Guess what guys. You are wrong. Melsondorph the Powerful most certainly exists. I am best friends with the guy in the group. They are hilarious.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melsondorph the Powerful

Non-notable band. 13 Google hits, allmusic and artistdirect never heard of them. RickK 23:49, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as ūber vanity. Why couldn't this individual put this much thought in a real page? Go figure. - Lucky 6.9 00:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tell the truth, Rick. 60 Google hits, including a newspaper article from a major newspaper, art festival entries, and samples on soundclick. And, hey, Lucky, why don't you take a look at my actual work before saying that I haven't put anything into a "real page." Rick, you seem to bear a neat little grudge against me ever since the Bart McQueary page. Hmmm. I wonder. — (Unsigned comment by 70.241.23.115.)
    • You might want to learn how to use Google. 60 hits is for every occurrence of the phrase on every page it's on. 13 is the count of the unique pages in which the phrase appears. RickK 20:26, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet any one notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. (BTW, I get 45 Google hits for the exact phrase "melsondorph the powerful". Some search options will alter the total number. Arguing about 13 vs. 60 vs. whatever is pointless; it's a very low number of hits, no matter how you slice it.) android↔talk 01:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • It meets the requirement for #6-- it is the premiere representative of the Tulsa and Oklahoma City grindcore/noise music scenes. I respectfully request that you remove your delete vote based on that criteria.
    • From WP:MUSIC: Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Since the album/style is described in this article as comedy and not grindcore/noise music, I find it hard to believe that any such scene exists. In fact, Google for "melsondorph the powerful" grindcore yields 0 hits. android↔talk 03:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Verifiability? You verified it yourself-- there's a newspaper article about it! We can have a Wiki page for Bart McQueary, who few people outside of Harrodsburg, Kentucky, have heard about, just because he sucks up to Fred Phelps, yet a band that has performed at festivals in such large cities as Tulsa and Oklahoma City is ineligible? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Another unsigned comment by 70.241.23.115
    • I verified its existence but could not find any verifiable evidence that it meets WP:MUSIC criterion 6 as you have stated. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. android↔talk 11:19, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Slac speak up! 03:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, what makes something like Grand Theftendo eligible but not this group? They have newspaper articles. They have albums. Just because people at Wiki haven't heard of them, that makes them ineligible? Isn't that a bit counter-productive? People come to an encyclopedia to learn new things, not things they already know. Another unsigned comment by 70.241.23.115
    • Then please give us more evidence about Melsondorph the Powerful that satisfies the criteria laid out in WP:MUSIC. Thanks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very questionable on #6 of WP:MUSIC and non-qualifying on all of the others. A Man In Black 11:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_April_21_d78f.html"