Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< June 10 June 12 >

Contents

[edit] June 11

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 --cesarb 08:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images of feces

  • M/K Difficult one, but I don't think these things are here gratuitously - if someone wants to WRITE about sh-t, then someone out there is like to want to READ about it. And from there, it's not a large step towards providing pictures. I go with Merge or Keep, rather than removing them because pictures of cars covered in pigeon poo don't entertain some people.
  • Not needed, and we have commons for image galleries anyways. For some reason I also highly doubt the GFDL status of the second image. --Conti|✉ 00:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Check Talk:Feces for why editors created Images of feces. Eyeon 06:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I note that despite the creation of a separate gallery for this purpose, the above user continues to edit war over including the image in the Feces article: [1] [2] [3] and forged a vote on a poll on that article's talk page [4] to that end. See my vote, below. Demi T/C 18:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete
  • Flush. Not needed. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sanitize for Wikipedia's protection. --FCYTravis 00:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this cr... no, no, I won't say it! ;-) 23skidoo 00:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am sure we all know what they look like. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you know what the other kind of rabbit feces look like? Kappa 01:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Excrete. -- BD2412 talk 01:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Comment This page was created to have a place for the images that were previously inlined on Feces, but which were removed, to mollify the user who added those images. It is(was) linked to by feces in a box that says "Image of human feces can be found at Images of feces" to protect users who would like to learn about feces without having to look at pictures of it. To those who would like to remove these photos entirely from Wikipedia, I request that you weigh in on Talk:Feces. Nohat 01:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone voting delete here is contesting the presence of the images on Wikipedia - just this gallery-type article. The images (or, as someone suggested below, thumbnails linking to them) should be put back in feces. -- BD2412 talk 03:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, the option of voting Merge is not clear to all voters. Eyeon 05:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Clarifying: this is not a vote, as Eyeon as already voted to merge, below. Demi T/C 18:32, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I wasn't voting to merge, but rather to delete this article. My comment was not a change of vote, simply a clarification that I'm only voting to delete the article, not the individual images contained therein. However, I have no objection to a merge, as I think an article on feces without a picture would be lacking. -- BD2412 talk 13:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disgusting, but encyclopedic. Note that the article was not created gratuitously -- it's a breakout of material from feces. We don't censor material that's offensive to others --- how can we justify censoring material that's offensive to us? ----Isaac R 01:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's totally unnecessary. I really can't imagine someone not intending this as a gag, and it's vandalism, plain and simple. Matjlav 01:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with feces. Though I still think it's vandalism to have made that page, those pictures could be a bit more acceptable merged, and placed around the page. Matjlav 20:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the images back into feces and tell the editors of that page that Wikipedia is not censored. Make them into small thumbnails if that helps. Or keep this page. Kappa 02:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think this is vandalism to rebute a previous comment. This is an online encyclopedia and information such as this should be included. However the pictures on there are poor and few.--EatAlbertaBeef 02:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an image gallery. -- Joolz 02:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - And the puns are all too easy. Amerika 02:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't need this crap in the Wikipedia. --Xcali 02:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Let us bring the Great Feces War to a close. --Barfooz (talk) 02:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - redundant, images can just be put on feces. jglc | t | c 03:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, check out Talk:Feces for a discussion of why we can't do that. --Barfooz (talk) 03:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not (toilet) paper. This article is just shit. JamesBurns 05:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back into feces. This page should be judged within the context of the article on feces, from which it is linked. See feces talk page. Eyeon 05:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems valid to me. User: Bifkin — (Improperly signed comment actually by 211.28.164.142; user's 22nd edit.)
  • Delete It is not valid, there is no content here, only pictures. The wikipedia, last I checked, is not a repository of pointless pictures. If they need to be anywhere, put them in the feces article and possibly in their own category, not a seperate article -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with "Wikipedia is not paper", and that includes toilet paper. Not encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Flush & bleach. If these images are copyvios, then they should be deleted. If they are properly licensed, this should be turned into a category at WikiCommons. Either way, this article is a POV fork and needs to be flushed down the toilet. — Chameleon 12:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and rename. Although the current images can, and should, be merged back into the feces article. The analysis of scat is an important part of field biology. This includes not only the identification of the various types of feces for species that may be hard to see, especially with those with nocturnal habits, but also the analysis of the scat to determine the diets of the different animals. For example, I own one field guide that is just for identifying scat. BlankVerse ∅ 14:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any appropriate photos should remain with article feces. If not appropriate there, not appropriate here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am not going to ask how they got the second picture! I am not going to ask! It's in feces and it doesn't deserve its own gallery article. Sonic Mew 15:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? Because it's repulsive? Not relevent. There's a good explanation for this article on Talk:Feces. If nobody can be bothered to read it, this whole "collaborative encylopedia" concept is a joke. ----Isaac R 16:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I have looked at the talk page, but I have already given the reason. It is not needed because it is already in feces. Sonic Mew 16:42, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back If you really see a problem with a picture of a turd or two or three, then shouldn't we just link to the pictures directly, and not put them on a seperate page? Or maybe just make it a sub page. I doubt the GFDL on the first two pictures, and I think the third is highly amusing. I really don't see how you can find a picture of a human turd so incredibly disgusting that it can't be in an encyclopedia. Don't we see this once a day or two? It is a little silly to need the picture however, for the same reason. --Phroziac 17:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. SI units should be used in the caption of the first image. What the hell, it's about a sensible as any other suggeston here! Physchim62 17:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mere picture galleries don't belong in Wikipedia. If the image is appropriate/inappropriate for the article, or if it needs to be linked, that's a separate issue. I think Eyeon has made it very clear that regardless of the existence of an article for the purpose, he will continue to insist the image be inlined on the Feces article, and back up that insistence with bad behavior (as he has done on this vote by changing votes: [5] [6], and on the talk page by forging a vote [7] and voting as a sockpuppet [8] [9]; Eyeon admits to being 70.177.90.39 [10]) Demi T/C 18:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not an image bank --Doc (?) 19:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete worthless Ashibaka (tock) 20:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Samboy 20:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article has no value above that of feces --TimPope 22:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless anyone fancies merging with fan? Steve block 19:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. the not paper has been soiled. Wikipedia is not an image bank but an encyclopedia illustrated on occasion by images. Do not merge back into feces; what do these images contribute to the article? carmeld1 21:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back into the main article. --W(t) 23:17, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored. Fair enough. Wikipedia is, however, an encyclopedia, not a repository of pictures of dung. How the hell does this improve the knowledge base of Wikipedia? In my opinion, it does not. Therefore, delete, regardless of what the inclusionists say. --Scimitar 15:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'm not an inclusionist, i'm a AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD! --Phroziac (talk) 16:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with feces. --Der Sporkmeister 16:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay with me. What's the big deal about that piece of shit? To me, a Human is just another animal, as User:Jong has said on his User page. I do not understand why is there fanaticism going on for a piece of human shit, probably due to religious barriers. But religion, again, is created by man's own ideas! Furthermore, a piece of shit may have its own purposes on wikipedia. I suggest Keep and merge with Feces, but if it's deleted, I don't care.Mr Tan 03:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't get it either, sounds like hipocracy to me. I personally find animal crap more disgusting then mine. They really should fight the picture on Meconium. --Phroziac (talk) 16:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would not be rediculous if it were at commons:Category:Feces, for example, but not here. Wikiacc 19:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete A page like this undermines the credibility of wikis. It serves no encyclopedic value.Barneygumble 21:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All images are (sadly) already on feces. JFW | T@lk 01:31, 19 Jun 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 with Contemporary classical music --cesarb 08:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary classical

Another imaginary music genre, this time 21st-century classical music. Googling the phrase "contemporary classical" would be useless, however.—Wahoofive (talk) 00:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. "Contemporary classical music" gets 39,800 hits... why, exactly, is googling useless in this situation? -- BD2412 talk 01:33, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Question: How is 21st-century classical music imaginary? DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- I'm guessing that Wahoofive thinks that a large number of hits is meaningless because both "contemporary" and "classical" are common words. However. If you search as a phrase, you still get over 100,000 hits, and many seem to describe a genre. Also if you Google for the individual composers described in the article, you will find hundreds of articles for each one describing them as "contemporary classical". ----Isaac R 01:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because you don't listen to it doesn't mean it's imaginary... (comment by Matjlav at 02:02, 11 Jun 2005)
  • Strong Keep (vote changed to Merge) - I fail to understand your reasoning that googling is useless. Google "Contemporary classical". --Barfooz (talk) 02:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: The reason the Google test is irrelevant is that "contemporary" as an adjective applied to "Classical" as an adjective is going to generation bazillions of hits for "contemporary recording of classical music" and "contemporary classical recording," etc. I.e. it's not going to reveal a genre. So that's that. As for the reason for deletion, the term is an oxymoron. See Classical music: the term refers to a particular type of serious music, not all serious music. I.e. there is Romantic music, Baroque music, Classical music, minimalist music, serialist music, abstract music, etc., all of which are called, by people who don't study music, "classical music." So, is there a neo-Classicism movement underway right now that is a genre? If so, it has entirely escaped the notice of the music press. Geogre 03:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment
http://contemporary-classical.com/
Google: "contemporary classical" + genre [11]
Also, if you look at the google search for "contemporary classical" [12] you will see that the word after "contemporary classical" is almost without fail "music" or some adjective that modifies "music". The point I'm trying to make is that this is a genre. Also, I don't think that most people know that there's a difference between "romantic", "baroque" and "classical", and they group them all under "classical" - that seems to be what's going on with this term: if symphonic instruments are used in music, we call it "classical" --Barfooz (talk) 04:22, 11 Jun 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 speedily deleted. Kelly Martin 11:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sasscer

Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Trivia: Is not notable. Made a vanity page on Wikipedia. Should be userfied if at all possibly; otherwise deleted. -- BD2412 talk 01:34, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete: It would be nice to userfy it, but as stated previously, I'm not very nice when wearied by these kinds of mistakes. Geogre 03:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Patent vanity from an anon user. --Xcali 03:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Patent vanity from an anon user. — Chameleon 12:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Phroziac 17:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Vanity. You 20:17, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted; I concur. -- Infrogmation 02:52, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 06:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saimeks

Delete. Vanity, self-promotion, advertising. Article does not assert notability; in fact it asserts non-notability. 11 unique Googles for "saimeks", 246 for "paul westermeyer" (none of which seem to be relevant) and the referenced "humor" site, thefire.tk, is simply a advertising page with a redirect to a collection of links to "humorous" screeds hosted on Geocities. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:52, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Unpopular and mostly overlooked." -- BD2412 talk 01:36, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete Is asserting non-notability notable? I think not. --Xcali 03:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is not asserting non-notability non-notable assertably? --Barfooz (talk) 03:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete come back when notable. — Chameleon 12:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. --Phroziac 17:26, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 06:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water Polo at the 1956 Summer Olympics

This ariticle gives its "source" as another Wikipedia article (Water polo)! In fact, it's just a paragraph from that article. Maybe someday somebody will write an interesting article on a particular sport at a particular Olympics, but just repeating material from another article is not a good way to start. ----Isaac R 01:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Water polo. Wait, it is? Then Delete. — Phil Welch 02:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Already merged so its a definate Delete.--EatAlbertaBeef 02:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Uncreate the fork. Geogre 03:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fork. --FCYTravis 04:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is potential for an article on this because the water polo match semi-final between Hungary and the USSR occurred after the Hungarian revolution and was a bloodbath. However, our water polo article covers it adequately and there's not much point in having a repeat article. An article covering the tournament in depth may be a different story. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fork. JamesBurns 05:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just did a complete reworking of the article. Please take another look at it now. -- Jonel 15:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If you'd added more narrative, I might have changed my vote. But you just added a lot of scores. In my opinion, that makes the article even less useful. A good encyclopedia article is not a collection of trivia. Have a look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. If you have a passion for sports scores, consider starting a sports almanac at Wikisource. ----Isaac R 16:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Please take a look at Water polo at the 2004 Summer Olympics and compare that to this one. The 1956 article has *more* narrative than that one, as I kept (but cleaned up) the information that was already there. It is my avowed belief that all Olympic results are encyclopedic. If someone can add more narrative to any of the Olympic pages, I would be very grateful. -- Jonel 23:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely keep rewritten article, now that it's no longer a fork. We have plenty of articles on specific sports at specific Olympics (see Template:Olympic Games Football to start with). A collection of Olympic competititors and scores is most definitely an acceptable start to an encyclopedia article. If you think it needs more prose, add a {{expand}} tag on it. sjorford →•← 17:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! It could be expanded, but its a good start... --Phroziac 17:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You 19:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done Jonel. It's a useful article now. Capitalistroadster 23:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep well-rewritten article. Xoloz 03:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a good article on one of the more well known events of those olympics--AYArktos 07:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the more notable events at the 1956 Summer Olympics for the Hungary/USSR contest.--Takver 12:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- valuable topic containing useful verifiable information. - Longhair | Talk 13:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Cyberjunkie 15:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Longhair. Mr Tan 03:14, 16 Jun 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 --cesarb 08:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Associative Model of Data

Looks like an ad and/or vanity. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Associative_Model_of_Data. Weak Delete. --cesarb 01:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I think this is just some weak beating around the bush about a concept that is real and is encyclopedic. I can't make sense of what this article is really trying to say. I don't think it was meant to be an ad/vanity. Weak keep. --Barfooz (talk) 04:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, OR, ad. The article states it was developed by the creator of this article and links to his company to download his book. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - if barely. Associative ways of doing things are fairly well known, and this does seem to have some genuine interest value although it is poorly written. However, the entire background section was irrelecant and very ad-like, as was the final sentence. With that gone, it could probably be kept. Either that or merged into data models - but that page needs work itself. =Splash 22:49, Jun 14, 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 ambiguous.

I count 15 "delete" votes, 8 "keep" votes (9 anonymous or very new user's votes were discounted) and 3 comments that were too ambiguous to call.

Reviewing the content and the comments below, I find 1) an argument that the article is lexical rather than encyclopedic and 2) an argument that if verified, the contents of the article might form the basis for a new article at the title ROFL Attack. (An article by that title does now exist but was apparently created by cut-and-paste during the discussion period.) The facts supporting the first argument were never disputed. The "keep" voters instead expressed their dissent with the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and argued to keep despite the policy. (Wikipedia has an admittedly inconsistent precedent on that question.)

I find the content related to the word and it's derivation to be both unverified and more appropriate to Wiktionary than to Wikipedia and hence deletable. However, because content from this article was used to create a separate article, I am going to exercise my discretion to call this decision as a "keep as redirect" in order to preserve the attribution history. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roflcopter

Non-notable forumcruft. — Phil Welch 01:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Funny but not-notable. Delete--EatAlbertaBeef 02:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm pretty sure this has been deleted before, maybe under a slightly different name. --Xcali 02:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Maybe the other one was something more along the lines of "mayo" as in roflMAO...I have the same suspicion. --Barfooz (talk) 02:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe it was lollerskates, which was unfortunately merged with LOL. These are just silly... you can append or prepend just about anything to LOL or ROFL to get "humor." AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:26, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable subculture topic. LouieS 5:26 11 Jun 2005
  • Keep, I challenge Android79 to find a more popular non-acronym affix for ROFL. Kappa 06:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Easy-peasy: Roffle gets 751 unique Googles; Roflcopter gets 739. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 06:41, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • That looks more like a spelling variant than an affix. Kappa 08:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-acronym affixes for ROFL are notable? — Phil Welch 00:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article carries the same level of notability as many of the Internet memes that have separate pages listed on that topic's category page. --Dachannien 12:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd so love to delete all this trivial crap, but the is a precedent for keeping it. — Chameleon 12:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lollersk8s, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lollerskates, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"Lolz Sauce", Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WJOWSA. Uncle G 13:36, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • An encyclopaedia article should not be lexicographic. The disputed etymologies of the word "roflcopter" and links to related words belong in Wiktionary:roflcopter. Encyclopaedia articles should be about people/concepts/places/events/things. The only actual things that I can find that are roflcopters are the animated GIF (linked to from the article) and the element of the ROFL Attack game. But note that there are quite a lot of these GIFs. Do we want individual perpetual-stub (1 sentence + GIF) lollercoaster, lollerbate, roflcraft, fuboat, lolls-royce, steamloller, lollerbate, lmaonade, maplol syrup, and wftcar articles on each individual animated GIF? Or do we want a general article that covers all animated GIFs that mimic animated ASCII art and that parody Internet slang (which, presuming that this one web site is not the sum-total of the genre, could, in contrast, be expanded from a stub)? If this one web site is not the sum-total of the genre (At the moment roflcopter.com. has no actual content, and thecrunge.net. has DNS problems and cannot be reached.), this article should be renamed to some more appropriate title (Animated GIF of Internet slang?), and refactored so that it can expand to cover the genre instead of just one individual picture from the genre. Furthermore: Most of this article appears to be about a game called ROFL Attack, and not about roflcopters at all. A random sampling of the Google Web search results indicates that it's actually the game that is the Internet phenomenon, not the word. If this one web site is the sum-total of the animation genre, then this article should be renamed to ROFL Attack. Uncle G 13:36, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • I did the same thing with Notable lines in the Star Wars series (saving "I have a bad feeling about this" from otherwise certain doom). The difference is that I've tried to show with each line listed in that article why it's notable. Animated GIFs of Internet slang aren't notable together or separately--they are forumcruft. — Phil Welch 00:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • They are together if they have become an animation genre. As I said, this is predicated on whether this one web site is the sum-total of the animation genre. There's also the point that I made that there is a game here, ROFL Attack, that is distinct from the animated GIFs. Uncle G 01:22, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
        • Only if they have become a notable animation genre. And the game isn't notable either. — Phil Welch 01:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable... --Phroziac 17:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable in subculture. --Eszett 18:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What subculture? — Phil Welch 00:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The internet subculture. I have seen this on many sites, and I have also seen a fair number of derivative works based of this meme in particular. --Eszett 04:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • What internet subculture? I was unaware that the billion-some internet users were all members of the same subculture. Or it is some obscure webforum subculture that you arrogantly presume to be the entire internet? — Phil Welch 05:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • It certainly isn't 'obscure webforum subculture', I have heard the term used in everyday speech by everyday Internet users. Just because a certain class of Internet users find nothing notable about it on Google does not mean that it isn't well-known. --Eszett 01:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • "I have heard the term used in everyday speech" is a lexicographic argument (and an unverifiable one, at that) for keeping an article about a word in a dictionary. Now please address this article, which, being an encyclopaedia article, has to deal with people/places/concepts/events/things — namely roflcopters, animated GIFs, and a game. Please explain which of those three you assert to be notable, and why. Uncle G 01:59, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
              • I assert that the roflcopter is notable enough to have its own article. It has evolved beyond mere forumcruft; right now it occupies a precarious position between widespread acknowledgement and the most known of obscurity. Like any fad on the internet, it is impressioned onto more people every day and thus should become a growing trend. I don't know of any restrictions on Wikipedia for growing trends or internet memes. --Eszett 04:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • Wikipedia needs more to go on than your assertions. — Phil Welch 05:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Notable. 16,100 responses in google. The fact that all of you feel that it is childish does not mean it should be removed. I know many people use wikipedia specifically to find out information about internet fads and occurences such as roflcopter. To remove it would be stupid. — (Unsigned comment by 70.104.69.243; user's 1st edit.)
  • Keep This is a significant part of internet subculture. — (Unsigned comment by Cashcow; user's 6th edit.)
    • Please add your comments to the bottom of the discussion unless you are replying to someone in specific. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For internet phenomena, the Google bar is much higher, because the internet is likely the sole source of evidence for significance -- 739 unique hits, 16000 total hits does not meet that burden; therefore, not notable. Xoloz 03:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a very notable area of subculture. — (Unsigned comment by 68.46.115.63; user's 7th edit.)
    • Please add your comments to the bottom of the discussion unless you are replying to someone in specific. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:56, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xoloz carmeld1 23:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. freestylefrappe 01:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • What is notable? The GIFs or the game? Uncle G 01:59, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Keep The animation is pretty notable (my math teacher even referred to it on a test once...) and i think is probably just as well known as Homestar Runner or other internet phenomenom. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. IIRC this was deleted either as roflcopter, rolfcopters, ROFLcopter or ROFLcopters some time ago, long enough that the deleted history would've been purged. -Sean Curtin 07:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Radiant_>|< 12:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very informative. -- (Unsigned comment by 82.69.115.21)
  • Keep notable. 165.247.109.196 23:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) — (165.247.109.196's 1st edit.)
  • [Vote table removed. Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes.]
  • Keep - It will be a sad day for history if this article is deleted. It is a shame that all of you who demonize elements of pop-culture like the ROFLCopter hold so much power. As members of the human race it is our responsibility to keep Wikipedia full of as much useful content as it can hold. What is a parent supposed to tell his/her child when the child is unable to learn about the origins of the ROFLCopter? Surely they could never tell the child of the attrocity that occured in the deletion of the article, for that would forever scar the child. If this article is deleted I hope you all feel the great shame that you should feel for taking two buckets overflowing with knowledge from the fountain of knowledge, instead of just one. - ASI (6-13-05) — (Duplicate vote by User:68.46.115.63.)
  • Keep notable memo.  Grue  13:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another case of a few people finding something they like on the internet and pretending that it was an important step in the development of humankind. Indrian 07:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Exucse me Indrian, but if your going to create a world knoledge base you have to include everything, even if you don't think it has any "value" in terms of the philosophical progress of humanity. The fact of the matter is tens of thousands of people have seen it, and that means it garners mentioning. --LouieS 08:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge w/LOL or, perhaps List of LOL Variants or something similar. We'd be lax if we didn't keep these various LOL variants here. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Phil and Indrian are stuffy bastards. I love coming here to find out the origins of the semi-meaningless slang terms that make up 50% of my everyday speech. --K.K. 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of the claims on the article are unsourced and unverified. The first link on given in references tries to hijack your browser's start page. Quale 19:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or at least merge into LOL (Internet slang). I've seen this and variants on it in several online communities. —Brent Dax 08:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Very funny and also notable. — (Unsigned comment by 24.16.152.241; user's 1st edit.)
    • <sigh> Please add your comments to the bottom of the discussion unless you are replying to someone in specific. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or create another article called "list of variants of LOL" (or something less awkward). I agree with Badlydrawnjeff and others in saying that this is notable, yet not notable enough to have its own article mysekurity 21:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with LOL. People still run around saying "roflcopter" and "lollerskates" (usually sarcastically) on EFnet.--Jack (Cuervo) 15:13, 21 Jun 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. JeremyA 23:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friend of Dorothy

Merge and redirect to Gay slang. Simply reproduces what's already there. Exploding Boy 02:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment If your intent was not for the content to be deleted, you probably should have just been bold and merged it yourself without VfDing it. GFDL requires that we keep the page's history if the content is merged to another article and this page is redirected, and therefore deleting the page (which takes the history with it) is not a valid option. See the discussion here for information on this. This applies to your other VfD submissions today as well, I believe. --Barfooz (talk) 03:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • My intent was more to avoid knee-jerk un-redirects actually. With discussion here the page can be deleted without fear, and the information really is covered well enough at gay slang that we could probably just redirect. Exploding Boy 17:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a common term with historical significance. Within the GLBT community it is very well known. It is much more than slang...it is a part of a subversive communication strategy developed by the gay community during a time when it faced governmental and police suppression. This article should remain where it is and be available for expansion.Tobycat 06:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge — Chameleon 12:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this could have potential. --TimPope 23:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep historically significant slang term. If anyone can verify, we could add the story I heard once, that the F.B.I. actually believed there was a "head homosexual" code-named Dorothy. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Heard that story myself. I'm sure it was in an interview with somebody who'd written a book on gay culture in the 50s. If somebody who know more about gay issues than I do could track down that source and add it to the article, it would push Friend of Dorothy over the dicdef/article boundary.----Isaac R 01:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is enormous potential for expansion on Judy Garland's role as a gay subculture icon. Xoloz 03:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That would belong in Judy Garland. ---Isaac R 04:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree. The gay icon aspect of Judy Garland is only one part of the Friend of Dorothy phenomenon. The key point is that there was a time not so long ago when gay people needed to talk to one another using code. This was one of the common codes in the 50's and 60's and the article has a lot of potential to grow. It's ironic that this is coming up for VfD during GLBT history month.Tobycat 04:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Ditto TobyCat. Although every hobby today might call itself a "subculture", Garland was truly a subterrarean icon. The term passed into common language only long after Garland death, once the political climate changed, so including that explanation in her bio-article would grossly distort the historical development of the term. Xoloz 04:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Historically significant term. JamesBurns 04:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep …Guy M… (soapbox) 01:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It was useful in looking up an MST3K reference :-) adjensen 02:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • MergeSeeky 21:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Agree to redirect to gay slang. No need for seperate stubBarneygumble 21:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. More than a wiktionary defition and a well-enough known phrase to have its own article. David | Talk 13:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very old term with a very long history which can be referenced and discussed quite a bit. Especially in the context of Tobycat's comment above. --Sketchee 00:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Spinboy 00:23, 20 Jun 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. Golbez 06:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Oates

Non-notable losing parliamentary candidate. There are thousands of them and very few deserve articles. Joolz 02:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete him until elected. — Chameleon 12:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Winning would have made him encyclopaedia-worthy. Absent that, there has to be some other factor that makes this person satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, which as the article stands there currently is not. Delete. Uncle G 13:48, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:Uncle G. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Phroziac 17:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete lacks notability --TimPope 23:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that unsuccessful political candidates aren't notable unless they've done additional stuff to make them so. In fact I argued as much here and here -- with no success. So now I have to play Devil's Advocate and ask: Why is Mr. Oates less notable than other unsuccessful politicians? ----Isaac R 01:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So, can this article be expanded beyond a stub? --Phroziac (talk) 04:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleete nn.  Grue  13:22, 14 Jun 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. Golbez 06:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Wassell

Another non-notable losing parliamentary candidate. Joolz 02:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete her until elected. — Chameleon 12:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Winning would have made her encyclopaedia-worthy. Absent that, there has to be some other factor that makes this person satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, which as the article stands there currently is not. Delete. Uncle G 13:48, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:Uncle G. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Phroziac 17:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete lacks notability --TimPope 23:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  13:21, 14 Jun 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. Golbez 06:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aunt Mary

If this is a real gay expression, which I doubt, it should be merged and redirected with gay slang Exploding Boy 02:05, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with Exploding Boy for the Merge.--EatAlbertaBeef 02:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A close look at the first 30 results for the Google search "Aunt Mary" + gay [13] reveals no linkage between the terms. The closest link between "Aunt Mary" and gay is this article [14]. Quote:
John Ridener, 25, said that in his hometown of Corbin, he recalls a strange silence hovering over the subject of homosexuality.
"It's almost like your Aunt Mary - the crazy old aunt upstairs who everyone knows is there but no one talks about," he said.
Many of the other results are for a Marcy Playground song called Saint Joe on the School Bus, which refers to "Aunt Mary" but does not have the word "gay" in it. I believe that this was made up by someone. Delete. --Barfooz (talk) 03:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Further comment: Link to an essay on a play called "Aunt Mary" that deals with gay issues. [15]. Never explicitly explains why the character is called Aunt Mary. Perhaps this slightly weakens the case against the term, but still, I emphasize that I have found no explicit confirmation of "Aunt Mary" meaning "gay". --Barfooz (talk) 03:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Barfooz's research shows why the author didn't give any place for verification: it's unverifiable. It looks like the gay slang of "Mary" with "Aunt" in front of it. Wow. Next will be Uncle Twinkie no doubt. Geogre 03:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, if it exists at all. -- BD2412 talk 03:45, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete. — Chameleon 12:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No evidence of notability or of actual use. Someone's private slang - delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be verified. (Useful term though!) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Gay slang. JamesBurns 04:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - But it sounds like something Larry Kramer came up with... ℬastique▼talk 05:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified by a reputable source. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete …Guy M… (soapbox) 01:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Gay slang. CDThieme 02:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be verified. Though it is a good word. --Taejo 15:11, 16 Jun 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, since User:Dannyyee did not want this userfied. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Yee

Though Mr. Yee, who is also a wikipedia editor, has an impressive list of book reviews and USENET contributions, notability is not firmly established in the article as written. A google search (multiple variations) is useless as "Danny Yee" seems like a rather common name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfy: Although I think EFF is good, and history on the net is good, it's not notability. I'd say userfy, and we can always break it out to an article again. Wikibofh 04:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy or Delete (per Danny Yee's preference). unless it can be shown that being a board member of EFF Australia is a particularly significant thing, and that his actions as a board member have had significant impact in Australia. Sounds like a nice guy, but since he's a relatively new editor, maybe he wasn't aware of WP:VAIN. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:VAIN isn't really relevant - I didn't create the entry. But I agree it's pretty borderline, so I'm happy for it to go away (I almost blogged the entry when I found it, with a tag along the lines of "You know Wikipedia is out of control when..."). -- Danny Yee 09:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that the original article was started by a couple of anonymous users, I jumped to the conclusion that you had started it before you registered. My bad. Thanks for taking this so gracefully. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:59, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, it's not EFF Australia, it's Electronic Frontiers Australia (must do some work on that article!), and it's not affiliated with the EFF, though it was inspired by it. Also, almost all the Google results for "Danny Yee" are in fact references to me, if that's any help. -- Danny Yee 09:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Further digging sees that indeed, they are, for which I apologize. If notability can be further elaborated in the article, I will change my vote and withdraw my nomination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. — Chameleon 12:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. JamesBurns 04:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note on nomination: As an elaboration in line with recent comments, my nomination is for a Userfy rather than a straight-up deletion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As bloggers go, I'm very small fry (among the least significant in the Bloggers category), while there are a good number of Australian civil liberties or free software activists who need entries before I do - most notably EFA executive director Irene Graham. Which leaves http://dannyreviews.com, but I can't think of anyone achieving notability just as a book reviewer - online, Harriet Klausner (of 3000+ reviews at Amazon fame) is probably the best candidate, though I can't get excited by one paragraph reviews of romance novels. So just delete it - I'll rewrite my user page. -- Danny Yee 11:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let Danny build his own User page unencombered.--Takver 12:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy -- if that's what Danny wants, or delete. - Longhair | Talk 12:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Recently Danny has commented in his blog on how Google had curiously demoted his site in their search rankings so that even if you search specifically on the name of his site the actual site appears well down in the returned results. I speculate that a reader of Danny's blog may have thought that adding an entry to Wikipedia on Danny with links to his site may positively affect its Google ranking. Notice I am certainly not suggesting that Danny did this or would condone adding material to Wikipedia for this purpose. Oska 00:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, my current best theory as to why Google thinks my web sites are spam is that lots of spammers/scrapers have created junk pages with links to my pages on them. And part of that problem comes from having so many Open Directory entries... The web is not as friendly a place as it was back in 1994. -- Danny Yee 04:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I'm not sure how this voting for deletion works - should I just remove the article myself now or is it automated somehow? -- Danny Yee 04:56, 15 Jun 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. Golbez 06:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fag hag

covered better at gay slang Exploding Boy 02:12, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect only. Geogre 03:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Gay slang provides a brief statement while Fag hag is a full explaination. It is a fairly common slur we should be able to explain. -Acjelen 03:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, expand. The term is certainly notable enough to stand as its own article. -- BD2412 talk 03:44, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable term.. often used on Will & Grace - Aaron Hill 04:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I first heard the term in The Message by Grandmaster Flash and it is a fairly common term with currency outside the gay community. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. This term is used quite often. JamesBurns 05:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good article on widespread term, which is by no means always a slur. I use the term frequently, and have never intended it to be insulting, nor has anyone I applied to been insulted by it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Widely-used term worthy of its own article. Xoloz 06:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly notable article. Ambi 23:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep …Guy M… (soapbox) 01:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, you can hardly say it is covered better in the list of gay slang where it has a 1 line definition. A longer definition would be unjustified in such a dictionary list, so if the longer definition is worth reading then it has to be a separate entry.Sandpiper 15:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Move any additional material from gay slang to fag hag. -Seth Mahoney 23:47, Jun 17, 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. Golbez 06:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronoun game

this might occur with some people, but the title of this article is nonsense, as is most of the article itself. Exploding Boy 02:18, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete the concept might merit mention on an article dealing with Les/Bi/Gay issues, but I don't think it needs its own article. --Xcali 03:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xcali. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the title appears to be appropriate. It is what people call this activity. See this, and this, and this and this and this and this and this and ... . The activity seems to be a significant one, moreover. The problem with this article is the third paragraph, which makes this appear to be a party game rather than a psychological game, not the title. And there really isn't a place suitable for merging this. None of gender-specific pronoun, gender-neutral pronoun, singular they, and gender-neutral language are wholly suitable, for example, since they are about pronouns rather than about the concealment of sexual orientation in conversation. Situational sexual behavior is not about conversation and coming out is not about concealment. Keep, with Move (retaining the redirect) to concealment of sexual orientation in conversation if a more descriptive title is desperately desired. Uncle G 05:20, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite, don't move. Ambi 23:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's well referenced (and done so again by Uncle G), but the title could be made less specific while retaining the GBLF origin, benefits and purpose. …Guy M… (soapbox) 03:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. — Phil Welch 16:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or move Seems like important information. Perhaps the gender-neutral pronouns entry may be a good home. Outright deletion would be a shame. posted by user: 143.88.86.146
  • Keep with a rewrite. JamesBurns 11:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite required. --Lejend 12:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but also add the point that people who are noncloseted queers or who are or straight may also speak like this so as to make a point that a person's sexual orientation shouldn't be assumed and doesn't have to be a big deal. --Triangular 10:06, 17 Jun 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. Golbez 06:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul William Hunter

O, how I wish we could speedy patent vanity like this. --Xcali 02:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Me too. Please delete. -- Hadal 02:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)\
  • Me three. The VfD load will soon be far too high. Delete. --Barfooz (talk) 02:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I see no harm, keep it on. -- Posted by 142.150.163.80 (talk • contribs), while simultaneously removing all other votes
  • I see no benefit. Delete. Geogre 03:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Personal ego stroking. Delete. Vonspringer 03:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not assert notability. resume, vanity. Wikibofh 04:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm very sorry if I've caused any trouble, I'm new to Wikipedia and I was testing out the area. I am interested though in updating the UTSC page, I'm an alumnus with many years experience in UTSC history, culture, and achievements. I do sincerely apologize for any commotion I may have caused. -- Posted by 142.150.163.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. You 19:24, Jun 11, 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 and move. Eugene van der Pijll 19:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nizhal Thangals

This appears to be a hoax. Google search [16] reveals one result. Author can't decide on how to spell this word; I have tried multiple spelling combinations but none bring up relevant results. Barfooz (talk) 02:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Vote changed, see below)

  • It's not so much of a hoax as it is an obscure sect of Hinduism. I suspect that this article, like every thing else the author has created, is copyvio from [17]. In any case, I vote Delete, not notable. --Xcali 02:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sure he was inspired by that content, but I have no idea how he made up the title of this article then, because those keywords aren't found anywhere in that content. *shrug* --Barfooz (talk) 03:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This may be one of those rare cases when a legit term is not to be found on Google because it is most likely to be used by those farthest removed from posting stuff on the internet. I'm not comfortable calling for its deletion. -- BD2412 talk 03:25, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • So then we shouldn't delete it because it can't be verified? Delete unless proven to be real. RickK 04:26, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't voting either way, just hoping someone would have some idea where to look to confirm/debunk. -- BD2412 talk 04:29, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Well, looks like this is real. [18] (half way down the page). Good hunch, BD2412. Accordingly I am changing my vote to Keep and will rewrite the article as a pennance for my sin. --Barfooz (talk) 04:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's done. I'm slapping a disputed tag on it in the hopes that someone can verify the facts. I'm not really happy with the source of the information. Also, if this survives, it needs to be moved to Nizhal Thangal. --Barfooz (talk) 05:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete even if someone can find it verifiable this certainly isnt notable. JamesBurns 05:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Notability's not a criterion for deletion. Notability is subjective. See Wikipedia:Notable for more discussion of this. And most of all, I don't think we are qualified to make the decision about whether this is notable. Perhaps this is a quite important phenomenon in India. --Barfooz (talk) 06:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Nizhal Thangal. Verified by User:Xcali and User:Barfooz and NPOV. Well done. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per DoubleBlue. -- BD2412 talk 21:14, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move I agree with BD2412 that I don't know enough to vote on the basis of notability here. Since it has been verified, this needs to stay in the hope that a knowledgeable contributor will flesh it out one day. Xoloz 03:47, 12 Jun 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, although it was moved to the correct capitalization at Paul Weiss. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul weiss

Textbook vanity page created and abandoned by apparent student of Mr. Weiss -- Norvy (talk) 02:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Barfooz (talk) 03:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know anything about nanotechnology but Dr. Weiss is the Director, Center for Molecular Nanofabrication and Device, Eberly College of Science at Penn State. In addition, his list of publications and awards is extremely lengthy. See his c.v. here or his publications. In addition to his own writings, a Google search turned up many other publications that he has been cited in. DS1953 04:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The Weiss Group at Penn State which he heads seems to be conducting important research on atomic-scale physics and chemistry. [19] Capitalistroadster 05:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Paul Weiss, keep and expand. Seems to be a noted physics researcher. Has won many awards to boot. JamesBurns 05:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move as per User:JamesBurns. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move as per User:JamesBurns. Falphin 01:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I decided to be bold and move to Paul Weiss with appropriate capitalization. If anyone wants to expand, be my guest. Keep, delete, whatever is necessary, but it should be at its correct location no matter what. ral315 00:14, Jun 13, 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. Golbez 06:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DeeDee Deluxx

While I'd love to speedy, she does get nine Google hits and the page is correct about gigantic mammaries. Denni☯ 02:55, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

  • Gosh, I know this is awful, but Double-D-lete. Not notable. -- BD2412 talk 03:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • She sounds notable, but not in the wikipedian sense. Delete. DS1953
  • Although there is precedent for articles about big-busted adult entertainers, this one doesn't seem to be, er, big enough. Delete 23skidoo 06:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DeeDee Delete. not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to vote expand :-) but delete. How does one verify she is the biggest? DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I wouldn't mind verifying! :D --Phroziac 17:48, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 06:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orbitally rearranged monoatomic element

Quack quack. The last line cracks me up. Delete with haste. Denni☯ 03:01, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

  • Delete Here is a copy of the patent [20]. Appears to be total nonsense. This site also covers alchemy. pstudier 03:16, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete because the photonic quasifibrillation of this article has utterly deoscillated its nucleic flux capacitors. -- BD2412 talk 03:34, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Folks, please do not jump to conclusions about this article. I noticed some of you found links to other articles, and simply because they were hosted by a shady website, you immediately labeled this as bunk. Those websites are not at all correct. I have added a link to his audio lectures, which are the definitive source. Please, please do not delete this article without listening to his lectures. Also, I'm sort of a newbie here. This is actually my first original article, but that's not why I want it saved. I would just like the decision to be made on factual information, and I believe that requires listening to his lectures. Thank you.the1physicist 05:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This line alone, "This decreased interactivity will cause the ORMEs to lose 4/9ths of their gravitational attraction." is grounds to delete this article. There is no known process for decreasing the gravitational attraction of a material short of removing some of its mass. Denni☯ 19:03, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
      • Well this is new material (no pun intended). Of course we don't know of such a process if it's relatively new and unknown.the1physicist 23:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • What part of "no known" do you not understand? We are talking classic physics here, not some conjectural area. BTW, your sig sucks - if you claim to be a physicist, then you better pony up some reason why. Sorry for the rudeness, but rrmrrrDenni☯ 01:16, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not the place for non-peer reviewed research. JabberWok 06:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. User:The1physicist, please consult Wikipedia:No original research. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. It's advertising as well, but that's almost beside the point. I would consider a move to BJAON... Physchim62 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This cannot be speedied as Template:WP:CSD, because it makes sense on the surface. Advertising is not a criterion for speedy delete. And it is not a candidate for BJAODN because it goes onandonandon, and is so not funny. Denni☯ 19:00, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedily if you accepts my other's words that it is patent nonsense. --Pjacobi 20:15, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is, to anyone with even a basic knowledge of physics, patent nonsense. Having just completed a physics course which included some quantum theory, I have to say that this "discovery" throws much of what we know about matter entirely out the window (see gravity comment above) and at the same time has absolutely zero outside validation of his results. It is not being taken seriously by the scientific community. It shouldn't be.WAvegetarian 20:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • With Pjacobi's support, I happily speedy this article. Denni☯ 21:59, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • If you want to delete this article because it isn't peer reviewed, then I suppose I can understand that. However, just because something isn't peer reviewed doesn't automagically mean it's incorrect. So if the information can be deemed correct, why not keep it? Mr. Hudson's work does indeed throw a lot of what we 'knew' about matter completely out the window. As such, I challenge you to listen to his lectures and see if it doesn't make sense.
    Now, regarding the 4/9ths gravity claim: Hal Puthoff theorized that gravity is an illusion cause by matter interacting with the space around it. He did some math and came up with the 4/9ths figure. This was in the 70s I believe. Now if you look at the patent link so graciously provided by pstudier, you will see about 12 Thermogravimetric analysis graphs about halfway down. They chart relative weight as a function of temperature. Take a look at those. There is obviously something anomalous happening.the1physicist 22:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This may be argued to be a deletable article on a variety of grounds, but it isn't patent nonsense so I've restored pending closing of this discussion. At worst it's original research--but as I found no problem finding independent references to the Hudson claims it isn't that either. It's somewhat POV and lacks references for one or two of its claims, which are presented as fact rather than speculation. If we can write perfectly good articles about the likes of E-meter and Xenu, I don't think ORME's will present any problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Interestingly, "orbitally rearranged monoatomic element" gives exactly one hit at scholar.google.com. And guess who is involved. Mr Pitkanen, whose very private Theory of everything has been deleted from Wikipedia some months ago. --Pjacobi 15:12, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
      • Which means? If some nut mentions someone else's work in their theory, that has absolutely no correlation to the original person.the1physicist 23:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If patent nonsense like this is kept simply because it is not immediately unverifiable, the credibility of every other Wikipedia article is undermined. In Hudsonian terms, the decreased interactivity of every other article will cause them to lose 4/9ths of their intellectual attraction. -EDM 04:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm arguing to keep on the grounds that it is verifiable and obviously isn't patent nonsense (it's a crank theory, which would come under OR if not widely circulated). We have articles on flat earth and other nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Does it really matter whether the taxonomy of a crank theory is Original Research or Patent Nonsense? Either way, this stuff is lunacy of no encyclopedic value. -EDM 16:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes it does matter. The former is not a deletion criterion, the latter is. Patent nonsense would be basically something that doesn't even consist of coherent sentences in English. If an idea is nonsense, edit the content. See Xenu for an example of a good article about a completely utsnay idea. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Would you like me to edit the article to clarify a few things, or leave it alone while we're discussing it?the1physicist 23:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Being new to this process, I'm kind of curious as to why the lecture links were removed. Someone mentioned it could be advertising, but what is being advertised? If I was trying to increase that site's traffic, I would've linked to that site instead of directly to the audio files. I'm not trying to be a nuisance or anything, but I think further discussion of the validity of ORMEs/Mr. Hudson's claims would necessitate the restoration of the links. Also, regarding peer review, in his lectures Mr. Hudson references (several times) VERY similar research to his own being published in Physical Review C.the1physicist 06:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The lectures are not peer-reviewed. He can say what he likes in them. That's the problem. Take a look at the article's talk page for why this article is sooooooooo unlikely to be true. Physchim62 15:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I didn't say they were. I said that there is indeed peer reviewed research being done on VERY similar topics to his. I believe that would also nullify the claim that this is original research.the1physicist 23:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Patented patent nonsense? That's novel! (Delete.) - Mike Rosoft 07:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — techno-babble nonesense. — RJH 16:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is nonsense. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand very much science. See the article's talk page for a quick debunking of practically every claim made in the article. Quale 19:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I just happened to locate all the references Mr. Hudson used in his lectures here: References The cited references are indeed published, peer reviewed works, and are extremely similar to Mr. Hudson's work.the1physicist 01:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I particularly liked Paranormal Observations of ORMEs Atomic Structure... Most of the articles mentioned are not peer-reviewed, those that are have nothing to do with the claims made in the current article. This is a sad attempt to fork a bogus idea, and a waste of everybody's time. Physchim62 21:08, 17 Jun 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.

Leo: Where is the democracy ? The monoatomic element state it is the fact ! Can you stop the gravity ?

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. Golbez 06:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JQ (organization)

The article was created as vanity for a Yahoo.com group, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JQ/ func(talk) 03:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. func(talk) 03:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Well-meaning but non-notable. --FCYTravis 04:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:35, 11 Jun 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 process as copyvio. JYolkowski // talk 15:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montfort Secondary School Military Band

High school bands are unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 03:40, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 06:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiquin

dictionary-def (not a great one). Only 7 googles (6 distinct, one of those is us). Rest don't seem relevant. non-notable. (valid?). We could transwiki to wiktionary but I don't think they'd want it and could do a better job, so I propose just delete RJFJR 03:42, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • 7? I get 3. Wiktionary would want evidence that this is a word. I cannot find any. Since it isn't a word, it cannot represent the concept that it purports to describe. At best this is a move to some more appropriate title and delete redirect. However, I'm not convinced that there's a concept here, either. All graphic representations of words can be read from different orientations. (Consider: Have you ever read something viewed upside down? Is that not "reading from a different orientation"?) If the concept is different to this, there's not enough context in this article to explain what that concept actually is. Perhaps the author is thinking of ambigram, a more specific concept (see the article). We have an article on that, and there's no need for a redirect from this non-word to that article. Delete. Uncle G 14:11, 2005 Jun 11 (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. Golbez 06:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presidette

Neologism. 21 Google hits. --Xcali 03:48, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 06:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bacteriomics

non-notable: 11 googles. Possible neologism combining bacteria and economics, but is it an excepted field of knowledge? Hard to read article, I don't think it's intended as a hoax though I was suspicious. Contains a dictdef but not clear enough to transwiki to wiktionary. Propose delete RJFJR 04:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not a hoax. The -omics is a serious development in biology relating to holistic approaches to genetics, biochemistry etc. This therefore refers to the omics of bacteria, which could have an article written about it, but this is probably not it. There are many more hits for bacterial proteomics and even more for bacterial genomics. My best guess is redirect somewhere, probably -omics. Dunc|☺ 11:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then autoclave. As a biologist, I can emphatically state that we don't need another -omics word. It's as bad as the recent epidemic of -izzle suffixes in pop culture. On a more serious note, it only pulls eight unique Google hits, and only one scholar.google.com hit (where it was in "scare quotes" in a conference program, since even the group that used it knew it was a neologism.) There are no references for it on PubMed. This is a wannabe buzzword that just hasn't gotten its big break. If it must stay, make it a redirect to -omics. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism with no evidence of widespread usage or acceptance. Quale 19:28, 15 Jun 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. Golbez 06:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ZX2C4

Non-notable vanity FCYTravis 04:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Note - Anon creator is now blanking the VFD and removing the notice. --FCYTravis 04:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While ZX2C4 IM might turn into something of note, this article on its creator is vanity. Delete. -- Hoary 04:40, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/ad --Xcali 04:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Leithp 11:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being such an jerk guys. I made this article and I've been a jerk about it.
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. Golbez 06:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Symphony OS

Advertising. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Using Wikipedia to astroturf? RickK 04:17, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Note: the VfD tag was removed on 12:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) and readded 16:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC). --cesarb 16:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup: Delete the section about "Promotion Efforts". That is obviously the problem people have with this article, but it's ridiculous! Take it out and get over it people! Move on! --TomatoBob 17:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Biggest problem with this is that it's in the middle of a revert/edit war. Clearly notable, as I noted on the talk page. Subject of a recent slashdot article Wikibofh 04:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Weak keep if cleaned up and NPOVed. It was the subject of a Slashdot article because its creator used it to advertise. --FCYTravis 04:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It mayhave PoV issues, but it's a real system with news about it, so certainly there should be a Wikipedia entry on it. —BenFrantzDale 05:24, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless somebody creates at least a stub on Clay Shirky before this discussion is closed. If the Shirky article is created by then, disregard this vote. --Michael Snow 05:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The problem is with the content of the article, not the article itself. Just make it better and less advertising gren 05:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep' if cleaned up. Some notability. JamesBurns 05:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep bceause it's got some good info on the distro Trenchcoatjedi
  • Keep' so long as it is maintained as an encyclopedic entry, not something resembling a press release. --mtz206 12:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There's no reason to delete this article. It is a perfectly legitimate article. I am going to remove this VFD check since it was completely superfluous. There is a clear consensus here about keeping it. No need to waste our time. EliasAlucard|Talk 14:45, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)
    Elias, it's not up to you to decide whether a VfD is superfluous or not. Please let the Wikipedia community have its say first. -- ChrisO 13:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Why is this a VfD? Can you give me one good reason for that? Every Linux distro has its own article on Wikipedia. Why should this one not have it? Realise that it is not justifiable to delete it. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:21, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)
    It looks like most people agree with you. If you wait and let this process run its course, it will be a sign of strength for the article. DenisMoskowitz 14:08, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep it seems to be notable. DenisMoskowitz 14:08, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup Aecis 15:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Are we going to create articles on every little splinter the Linux community creates? This thing was just released as alpha software. I can't see how that makes it notable. --Xcali 17:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It will most likely cease to be alpha software, and when that happens, it will be notable enough to be worthy of a Wikipedia entry. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:34, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)
    Strictly speaking, that's a reason to vote against it - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it's not notable until later, it should not have an article until later. (Note that I think it's notable now.)DenisMoskowitz 02:24, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep there's nothing wrong with this article.
    • Anonymous user, this is their only edit.DenisMoskowitz 02:24, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep SymphonyOS really exists, and so merits a page. I think this is more an 'edit for NPOV' problem. Clay Shirky
  • Keep page; take up a collection to send EliasAlucard to an anger-management course. --134.244.168.222 18:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: EliasAlucard seems to have removed the {{vfd}} template from the page. --Dcfleck 12:58, 2005 Jun 14 (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. Golbez 06:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Goons (internet)

Unencyclopedic, non-notable Internet forum with 66 members. Again, adding every Internet forum under the sun will run Wikipedia out of whatever it is that's not paper. FCYTravis 04:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. --Phroziac 04:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adam Bishop 04:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not paper is cheap, but it's not free, especially if it's high quality. --Xcali 04:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. RoadKill Goons 4 Life, Goons are more than just a message board, it is a cyber family of honest men and women.10:24 pm, 06/10/05
    • Comment - User's first and only two edits are to this VFD. --FCYTravis 05:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable forumcruft. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has nothing to do with it being paper or not. Notability is notability. --Fastfission 05:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think that was a joke. --Phroziac 19:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. You 19:28, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the lack of notability. Nestea 21:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 23:53, 11 Jun 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. JYolkowski // talk 15:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QTF

Dicdef; transwiki to wikt: +sj + 04:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 05:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:18, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism not even in common enuf use for Wiktionary. Niteowlneils 17:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki You 19:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fine for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. -- BD2412 talk 20:18, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • Not that fine. This meaning is unattested, and is simply yet another Urban Dictionary protologism. The attested expansion of the initialism is "Quality Task Force". Delete. Uncle G 01:39, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
      • Perhaps - the underlying gist of my vote was "get it out of Wikipedia". I leave it to Wiktionarians to say what stays or goes there. -- BD2412 talk 03:29, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • delete obscure neo --TimPope 22:57, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 06:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Basham Show

29 Google hits doesn't seem to be many for a syndicated talk show host, especially when 4 sites account for 18 of them. Non-notable. --Xcali 04:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:16, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete, by the way - not sufficiently notable. -- BD2412 talk 20:17, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 19:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable local (not syndicated) talk show host. I wonder if he knows that he shares a name with a pro wrestler? — Gwalla | Talk 05:09, 17 Jun 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. Golbez 06:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan Social Democratic Party

Political party formed today. RickK 05:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) Keep the rewrite. RickK 19:57, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Revolución 20:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good rewrite. -- BD2412 talk 20:15, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep, thanks Uncle G Kappa 21:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. —Seselwa 21:30, 16 Jun 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 redirected. JYolkowski // talk 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Union Station (LACMTA station)

Information on page merged over to Union Station (Los Angeles). Now its just reduntant page. --Da 'Sco Mon 05:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and was bold in creating a redirect. --FCYTravis 05:40, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 06:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Urtiz

  • Delete - not notable... what is this? gren 05:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:14, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • I'm a Usenet poster, too. Delete. Uncle G 16:12, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. You 19:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. - DS1953 19:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete not notable, description bordering on nonsense --TimPope 22:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I've seen this guy, he's a retard.  Grue  13:29, 14 Jun 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. Golbez 06:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck andrews

No evidence of notability. Delete. -gadfium 05:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:14, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • delete not notable. Is Chubby Chicken perchance called Anthony? Dunc|☺ 16:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Geogre's Law applies again. WP:BIO criteria not met. Delete. Uncle G 16:27, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete even achieving "advanced highers in ... Big Headedness" does not make one notable. - DS1953 19:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete not notable (outside Renfrewshire) --TimPope 22:59, 11 Jun 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. JYolkowski // talk 15:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War?

The current content is not encyclopedic at all, and even if it were to be cleaned up, this particular song does not really warrant its own article. Should be redirected to System of a Down (album) MrHate 06:02, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I say redirect to the album, but you don't really have to list it on VfD if all you want is a redirect; you can do that yourself. :-) ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 06:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your wisdom overshadows my ignorance. Perhaps that would've been a good idea :) However, perhaps a delete might be suitable also. MrHate 07:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this the same song as "War (song)"? If so, then I say redirect and merge since that article discusses different versions of the song. If this is a different song, delete but keep a redirect to War (song). 23skidoo 06:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: They are different and unrelated songs. MrHate 07:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes War (song) was written by Barrett Strong who had the #1 US hit with it in 1970. Malakian and Tankian of System of a Down wrote War? which is a track from their first album. Our War disambiguation record claims it was a single but there is no record of it charting. My suggestion is that it should be a redirect to War (disambiguation) 203.26.16.66 08:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops that was me. Capitalistroadster 08:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Redirect per Capitalistroadster. Kappa 08:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hang on. I'll make a Flash animation of a Jack Russell Terrier saying "War?" and cocking its head so we have notable content for this article, because as we know, every Flash animation ever made is notable and encyclopedic Redirect. — Phil Welch 00:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • War? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Redirect. Lord Bob 08:30, Jun 12, 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. Golbez 06:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DVO

An actual band but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Admittedly, I created this article when I was a new user, thinking at the time that DVO was notable. I now see the error of my ways. MrHate 06:09, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete You 19:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per original creator's concession of non-notability. -- BD2412 talk 19:56, 2005 Jun 14 (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. Golbez 06:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HKMOO

Non-notable web forum. RickK 06:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • From the article, Alexa ranking of 324,000. Hey, at least the author is honest. Delete --FCYTravis 06:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete …Guy M… (soapbox) 06:18, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy ad. forumcruft --Xcali 07:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete lacks notability --TimPope 23:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete At least it does have information. JJnie 06:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote was not by JJnie, but by User:219.79.85.196. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete - it has some info, at least not useless - (anon vote by User:203.218.55.39 - FCYTravis 06:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)) The previous entry was made by superboy1304

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. Golbez 06:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British india band

Non-notable band vanity. Nonsense article, too, probably copyrighted, though I can't find from where. "British india" "Outside 109" gest 11 Google hits. RickK 06:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete …Guy M… (soapbox) 06:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity Epolk 07:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - [[[22]]] check their label. they're on the radio quite often in australia.
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 as an unresolved copyright violation. Please note that the content is sourced right in the article as taken from Obsidian Forum Community, a site which is clearly marked as copyrighted. No one came forward during the discussion period with any claim or evidence that this content is allowable under any of the fair use exceptions.

I will, however, note that no concensus was reached on whether there ought to ever be an article on this topic. There was a clear concensus against keeping this as a stand-alone article. The majority opinion (but short of concensus) was to merge any salvagable material into Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. I have not carried out that merge because the only non-copyvio content I saw already appeared to be well-included in the target article. This decision should not be considered precedent if a non-copyvio article is created on this topic. Rossami (talk) 20:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cut Ending to Knights of the Old Republic II

If this information is copyrighted, we can't host it here. If it isn't, it should go to Wikisource. --RickK 06:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete/Decapitate with a lightsaber. --FCYTravis 06:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - while this may have been content deleted from the game, it doesn't need its own entry in the Wikipedia. --Epolk 07:53, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- this is a subpage of KOTOR II, and a fairly important one for it. --maru 16:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't tertiary source material. It isn't even secondary source material. This is primary source material (actual scripts, verbatim, extracted from files in the game). Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. If the scripts had been public domain or GFDL, the right place for them would have been Wikisource. As it is the text is at the very least covered by a non-GFDL-compatible copyright (and almost certainly infringes the copyright of the game's creator, too). Copyvio. --Uncle G 17:05, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • That isn't an argument for deletion- that's an argument for removing the offending material and leaving the rest (and not all of the article is "primary source") alone. --maru 17:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That isn't an argument for deletion — It is on Wikipedia, when there's no non-violating version of the article to revert to. We do not keep copyright violations here. The only non-violating version of the article is in fact this, the very first edit. Given the content, reverting to that is largely pointless. We might as well go the whole hog and remove the entire article. not all of the article is "primary source" — Pretty much all of this article, bar 6 sentences (and external hyperlinks), is primary source material. Uncle G 18:40, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup to make it about the cut ending, rather than regurgitating the cut ending. -Rjo 18:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • You'd have to start the cleanup from this, to avoid basing it upon a copyright violation. Do you still argue for cleanup? Uncle G 18:40, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
      • You forget- most of the 'non-violating' stuff I added. I don't mind taking my (public domain) contributions and inserting them into the original edit. --maru 18:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I didn't forget, and that is exactly what you would have to do, yes. A significant fraction of your edits were alterations to the copyright violating text, though. And minus the script dumps, what you would make here from that beginning would fit easily into Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, which has plenty of room for 5 sentences (the 6th being irrelevant) and a few extra external hyperlinks. Uncle G 20:10, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete - primary source material, shaky legality, questionable notablility. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 18:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An encyclopedia describes and summarizes, it is not a textdump. Gamaliel 18:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords minus the copyvio stuff - I think the public domain stuff and links should still exists but the article is nothing w/o the script which should be removed. Yincrash 18:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. It should never have been created as a separate article. --Woohookitty 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the KotOR II article, dropping the primary source text and adding more content. Links to the Restoration Project and the missing content should be added to the KotOR II article. --Nufy8 20:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, definitely not worth its own article. --K1Bond007 20:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, into KOTOR II. --Thunderbrand 20:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Why on earth go to the trouble of a merge of the small free material? There isn't anything really needful there, and, frankly, the game isn't exactly a great encyclopedia topic. It's a great GameFAQs topic, but Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Geogre 02:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into KOTOR II. This is a good article but I can see why people feel it should not have its own article. This is an important topic because the critism for KOTOR II's has become something of large discussion. And for the above user Wikipedia has many game articles. --User:Psi edit
  • Delete copy-vio stuffing. Merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. --Riffsyphon1024 08:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Lightsaber it. Don't care about legal issues, but this is hardly encyclopedic material, being nothing but game resources. Also add a link to a site where this material can be found to the main KOTOR II page. --Sikon 15:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep once copyvio issues are dealt with. The game was forced to production early, and the ending was a major disappointment, depite the commercial success of the game. Since the game sold so many copies and was a highly anticipated sequel, I think this is notable enough for its own article. --Scimitar 15:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge non-copyvio stuff. Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 12:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per RickK and Uncle G. Quale 19:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge - Personally I feel that the best solution would be to wait until the Sith Lords Restoration Project is complete, then Merge it with the Main KOTOR 2 article. (unsigned comment by 80.42.153.146)
  • Keep - The article discusses the ending to a long, convoluted game with a planned epic climax likely including multiple character deaths that was left out to get the game released in time, making the end bizarre and nonsensical and robbing the entire influence system of its point. As such, there'll definitely be enough notability and demand for the subject, and enough to say about it to warrant a separate article. -- Kizor 14:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article's VFD poll is 10 days old. Still, no consensus is seen... --Sikon 16:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What are the guidelines for an inconclusive VfD? Are they to err on the side of caution? --maru 17:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I do think they are. -- Kizor
        • 8 deletes, 5 keeps, and 9 merges by my count (numbers may not add up right due to people casting votes for two positions simultaneously). So definitely not delete, since 14 > 8, but whether to merge or keep goes both ways, depending on how you factor in the Delete votes, since they could tip it either way. --maru 21:45, 21 Jun 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. Golbez 06:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lorain County Young Democrats

Nonencyclopedic political group - and I'm a Democrat. Do we need a few thousand Young Dem county pages with "hosted dinner with congresscritter" cruft? FCYTravis 06:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. I generally support the Wikipedia is not paper doctrine and call for broad inclusion of most articles, but there still must exist a line somewhere. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Primary author of Lorain County Young Democrats blanked this VfD page. Please add to watchlists to prevent. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. RickK 06:41, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic. Epolk 07:49, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — we don't need hundreds or thousands of YD or YR county group pages. Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but we still have a policy of deleting "garage bands", and this is almost the political equivalent. A case could be made for statewide YD/YR groups as there are good pages for some state political parties, but not for county ones. (I still belive Lorain County, Ohio to be a perfectly fine place.) Rlquall 10:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I would clearly support state-level YD/YR articles on a notability and encyclopedic basis. Taking it the county level, though, is one step too far. --FCYTravis 11:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all school/county chapters of Young Dems and Young Reps into the articles on the national orgs. -- BD2412 talk 13:38, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:33, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Garnier Fructis

Advertising. RickK 06:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nup. Don't delete. Definetely disagree. Garnier Fructis is a very big company which produces the best hair products. Any chic would agree with me, and probably guys too. I would call it a stub though... 04:23, Jun 11, 2005 (EST) (anon comment added by User:130.220.39.3)
  • Cleanup - needs major revision and NPOVifying. It is a company, though, so that much is deserving of an article. --FCYTravis 06:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No more notable than any other shampoo. --Xcali 06:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - I edited the page to remove the POV comments. Definately a stub now. Epolk 07:47, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, thanks Epolk. Kappa 08:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable haircare product. Capitalistroadster 08:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable brand. Shimmin 12:28, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- BD2412 talk 19:14, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep Their new-age TV jingle sometimes invades my dreams, so I may have been brainwashed to vote this way. :) Xoloz 03:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: is the proper name of the company "Garnier" or "Garnier Frustis"? --Xcali 05:50, 12 Jun 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 (no consensus). Merge/redirect, rename, split are all possible options. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Semiotics of Ideal Beauty

  • Original research, non-verifiable, non-notable. Zero Google hits, except for Wikipedia and its mirrors. Delete -- The Anome 06:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I will content myself with no more than two simple assertions: this is not original: paradigmatic analysis has been common in semiotics for years; and the fact that Google does not hit the phrase in the title, is hardly relevant to determining whether this is notable. If that were the criterion, many topics covered predominantly in the hard copy or limited internet access academic world would never gain exposure in the wider world. It amuses me that the opinions of a student seem to have triggered this. I have offered to retitle, to merge the material or simply to let him re-edit. Rather than negotiate, this page has been posted for deletion. Well, since humility is required, I vote for deletion immediately and let's all get on with something else more important. -David91 07:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Dave, I apologize. I did not mean for an actual vote to move forward so quickly. But, have neither fear nor bitterness. These things can go on for months and can actually serve to garner more interest in the subject.--Slac 16:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per David91 above. Needs to be made more NPOV though. Kappa 08:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it's an interesting, well thought out article, maybe it can be retitled or merged to some other existent article, but the content is worth developing. --Brendanfox 13:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I was not able to verify the source of the article from my university or public library. It was already clear the title does not represent whatever subject it describes (seemingly "semiotic aesthetics") but the one source that is referenced is also of questionable representability. --Slac 14:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have some significant problems with this. Semiotics of ideal beauty? Excuse me, but semiotics presupposes a transhistorical grammar of signs, and yet everything in the article is about historical conditioning of aesthetics. Also, the writing is in lecture format, still, so that makes it more of a presentation and original research than it should be. The best idea might be to reduce the material and merge it to semiotics ("Semiotics in aesthetics"]] or beauty ("A semiotic approach"). However, it seems to me utterly hopeless. Semiotic analysis as I learned it would never ask if there is an ideal beauty, but would rather ask what the token "ideal beauty" does and how it is applied linguistically and epistemically in all cultures, and it would seek to do this by never asking if a beauty were beautiful, but merely look for all contexts of the beautiful and try to trace the structures behind those uses. I suppose my suggestion is move to user page and then merge to appropriate topics in various pieces. I simply can't see this highly, highly specialized and exceptionally narrow pursuit being a topic sought in an encyclopedia by this lemma. Geogre 02:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if cleaned up. Interesting. JamesBurns 04:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • merge, rename, delete — What is left over when the lecturing is removed can find a place under Ideal beauty or aesthetics. It is suspicious there should be "Semiotics of Ideal beauty" before and until we have a long article on "Ideal beauty" itself (see Wikipedia_talk:Importance#Depth). "Semiotics of..." in a title should be a last resort of exporting from a really overloaded article. Barring that, there is nothing to stop us from treating the semiotics of anything in that thing's main article. dab (ᛏ) 10:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean out and merge with Beauty. The opinions need removing (or adjusting to a better form of expression) and there is no reason why this shouldn't be under the main topic for those who are interested. --Douglas 11:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP You know, someones actually working on this article. I'm not saying it doesn't need work, but lets wait and see when it comes to deleting... Roodog2k 01:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP/MERGE IMHO, although needing work, this information is beneficial, informative, and interesting. Please don't delete. Roodog2k 16:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your words of caution, Roodog, but I report that Slac and I have decided not to work on the page. My vote is already cast for delete. If others want to work on the piece to save it, that is their right. As my final thought on this topic, it's good to see a group of people prepared to debate the instrinsic value of content as against the manner of presentation. -David91 05:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Andycjp 15th June 2005
  • Keep it. Google isn't the navel of the world. --Istabraq 04:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Classroom project [23]. They added several such low-quality and original research articles and left them w/o maintenance. Some were already deleted. If this is real topic someone more knowledgeable should recreate it. Pavel Vozenilek 19:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep". I find this entry to be very interesting and fairly well written.
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 Already deleted. Golbez 07:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pachina

This is a definition. It should go in the Wiktionary. Epolk 06:55, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • It was transwikied before this nomination was actually made, note. Uncle G 17:10, 2005 Jun 11 (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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darko juric

Vanity. Follows Geogre's law. RickK 07:02, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

This one was speedy deleted one minute before you completed the nomination
07:01, 11 Jun 2005 Infrogmation deleted "Darko juric" (Orphan non-article vanity. Good luck on getting your degree.)
I believe nobody wants this undeleted so I'm closing the debate now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 07:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French presidential election, 2007

Speculation. RickK 07:05, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Future event with no solid facts Epolk 07:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Crystal ball and all that. --FCYTravis 08:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment is this actually any less encyclopedic than U.S. presidential_election, 2008? I'll abstain from voting for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The next French Presidential elections will be held in 2007. It will be decided in run-off election. There are two verifiable facts. As Sjakalle notes we have an article on a future election in another notable country the US where the President serves a fixed term. It is perfectly reasonable to have articles on the next election in a system where the President has a fixed term and a track record of elections being held at the due date. Capitalistroadster 09:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid stub for major forthcoming election, just like United Kingdom general election, 2009/10, Scottish parliamentary election, 2007, 2005 Conservative leadership election, Welsh Assembly Election, 2007, U.S. presidential election, 2008... The last two of these have survived VFD, as did United Kingdom general election, 2005 when it was first created. Can we please stop having the same darned arguments over and over again? sjorford →•← 11:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Crystal ball rule has been popularly set aside in many VfD's relating to future political events that are certain to happen, barring an asteroid obliterating the earth. Predicting such an asteroid will hit in 2007, now that would be a crystal ball case. -- BD2412 talk 13:41, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep as per BD2412. 23skidoo 16:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per US 2008 election, UK general election 2005/6 (which I remember voting "keep" for...), UK general election 2009/10, &c. &c. Note that WP:NOT explicitly cites a well-characterisable future election as a suitable topic. Shimgray 17:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Revolución 20:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per sjorford. -- Jonel 00:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster et al. It would ill-founded to exclude this while including the US2008 vote, and the US2008 must be here, because it is mentioned in every American newspaper every other day at least once, even now. Notable scheduled elections are an exception to crystal ball policy. Xoloz 04:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the next scheduled election article of all elections. --Unfocused 04:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a dead book on a library shelf. CalJW 04:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ral315 05:05, Jun 12, 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. Golbez 07:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Participant evolution

~50 Google hits for "Participant evolution". Combine it with "transhumanism" or "transhumanist" and it's down to 3. Most hits seem to deal with cyborgs. I'm saying non-notable neologism. --Xcali 07:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The biggest value of Wikipedia is where Google fails. This is exactly the case. The article gives the correct description of the term difficult to find elsewhere. The starting war between transhumanists and biocinservatives is an emerging social issue of a rapidly increasing importance. Understanding of the term "Participant evolution" is essential for an active social position and for understanding of the issue. Keep the article, update it, if necessary. Presscorr 08:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: User:Presscorr's fourth edit. Account appears to have been created after VfD started. --Xcali 17:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: That would seem to indicate to me that it's original research, an attempt to raise awareness, or an attempt to preditct what might happen. None of these are appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Xcali 17:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the above hyperbole, there is actually a concept here, and it is one coined by the same people who gave us the concept of cyborgs, and at the same time, back in the 1960s. I've removed an entirely irrelevant transhumanist credo (that said nothing at all about participant evolution) from the article and given you some secondary source references to chew on instead. Weak Keep. Uncle G 00:55, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per Uncle G. Xoloz 04:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Agree with Uncle G. JamesBurns 04:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uncle G's version is better, but we're still talking about something with only 50 Google hits. Perhaps it would be best merged into cyborg? --Xcali 05:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote this article to share the results of my research on Transhumanism and I also like Uncle G's version better than my original. If it must be redirected, the most appropriate place would be NOT to Cyborg, but to Posthuman that already refers to the term of "Participant evolution". "Cyborg" is a mere "mixture of organic and mechanical parts" and does not necessarily imply any kind of "evolution", it is only a subset of "Transhuman". However the Posthuman article already has much more information while the Transhuman article essentially just refers to it. So Posthuman would be the best redirect to right after the words "Homo sapiens", if it must be redirected. Presscorr 00:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand. -- BD2412 talk 20:01, 2005 Jun 14 (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. Golbez 07:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sappho r.o.k.

  • No notability proven. Slac speak up! 07:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete as non-notable. 3 Google hits for "Sappho r.o.k.", those being their website, Wikipedia, and a Wikipedia mirror. -- Infrogmation 03:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete …Guy M… (soapbox) 03:49, Jun 13, 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 page was speedy deleted at 02:25, 16 Jun 2005 by Gwalla (illegal content (advertising for warez)). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Again

Advertising his cracking skillz. RickK 07:12, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Let's show him our mad deleting skil1z, y0. --FCYTravis 07:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No relevant content Epolk 07:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I've got no problem with articles that cover illegal activities, but we shouldn't be promoting them. --Xcali 07:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider". Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep all hail censorship gods—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.192.103.183 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC).
    • Sorry, but anons are not allowed to vote. Please type ~ four times to sign.
      • Sorry, but anon are allowed to vote Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion though I doubt this one would be counted. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • IPs are allowed to vote, but not anons. This user did not sign his post, so it cannot be counted. ral315 23:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't believe that forgetting to sign my vote is a reason to disallow it. However, this anonymous user has very few edits (only to User:Again and some warez articles), and is likely User:Again him/herself. - Mike Rosoft 14:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete But state why in his user talk, and ask not to make it again Sonic Mew 15:25, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep good stuff Chubby Chicken 15:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This user, as stated elsewhere in vfd, has been voting "Keep" for an astronomical number of VFDs. ral315 23:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons stated by Sjakkalle. You 15:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) Weak Keep as long as it is a vanity band article, Delete if it returns to advertising warez, etc. You 15:42, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is now a vanity band article. This is a User Page, so a bit of vanity is allowed, but it could change again. Sonic Mew 15:38, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. User:Again started this page as a warez advert so I presume that is what it is. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why has User:Chubby Chicken vandalised User:Again's page? [24] DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • He seems to have reverted it. Sonic Mew 16:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete promotion of illegal activities. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 18:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete User:Again and block User:Chubby Chicken for vandalism. -- BD2412 talk 19:16, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete, user pages are meant to be related to Wikipedia activity, not for use as an advert, personal webpage, or anything similar. Average Earthman 21:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate use of a user page. Delete band vanity; speedy delete advertisement for illegal software. - Mike Rosoft 02:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, wikipedia is not a webhost. --Phroziac (talk) 04:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. The chickens have come home to roost for chubby. JamesBurns 04:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep user space Delete, user hasn't done much of anything else --SPUI (talk) 05:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Abuse of the userspace isn't a problem for VfD, which is about pages, but is a problem of user behavior, and we have procedures for dealing with troublesome actions of users, wherever those problematic edits occur. -- Seth Ilys 05:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-explanatory. ral315 23:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement, inappropriate user page -- Dpark 03:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, abuse of Wikipedia user namespace. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, just as a side note, this "user" has made exactly one contribution (excluding user page modifications), changing a comma to a period on List of warez groups -- Dpark 03:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of above reasons. And I would say permanently block the user, who has clearly attempted to use Wikipedia for illegal purposes and has made NO contribution to this site. Postdlf 03:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete troublemaker. We already have enough of those who actually make contributions Nohat 06:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, should arguably be a speedy as promoting illegal activities is in itself illegal. Radiant_>|< 14:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a free web host. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Not only are we not a web host, this is VERY illegal. Oh sure, they've cracked XP and Office 2003, yeah that's bad enough already... but they're "selling warez for a living"?!? That's some deep **** they're in, and I wouldn't want WP to in any way be percieved as aiding or abetting software pirates in the organisation and reconnaisance of their work. That, and the fact that some wronged company could find this page and misunderstand the nature of WP and send us a nasty letter. We have a policy clause about illegal uses, right? If not we should organise one so things like this can be "shot on sight" in future. Master Thief GarrettTalk 10:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In the discussion about speedy deletion criteria it has been mentioned that illegal contents do already get deleted on sight. I am marking the page for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 07:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, thank you, I knew I'd seen it somewhere. However I was unable to to find it on the "what you can and can't use your User page for" list. Maybe we should add it there too? Master Thief GarrettTalk 07:52, 15 Jun 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. Golbez 07:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morbid prisoners

They won a university Battle of the Bands. Congratulations. Now go record some albums. FCYTravis 07:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity, non-notable (yet). And the article isn't much encyclopedic either. andy 09:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:13, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Xcali 17:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please use {{music-importance}} in preference to nominating a band article for deletion 1 minute after its creation. Uncle G 17:32, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Morbid Prisoners" gets not a single Google hit. This is vanity or vandalism, especially given the vulgar last line. --FCYTravis 17:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalism, vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 18:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable at least. -- Infrogmation 03:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 04:43, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parent materials

Definition page. Content was merged into soil entry. Epolk 07:17, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, minimal definition attempt, or Redirect to soil would be okay by me. -- Infrogmation 03:06, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global Community

I don't think a group of teenagers in Augusta, GA trying to take over the world is notable. Obviously, Google is no help here due to the common phrase. --Xcali 07:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The group is a purely educational club, teaching students the values of leadership, cooperation, and activism. Your claim of the teenages "trying to take over the world" is a ridiculous one. I'm sure the members realize that such an undertaking is on the verge of impossibility and isn't a reasonable venture. Google would not be a help, as this is the first time we've posted anything on the internet. This was to help keep in touch and continue organization while we're spread apart. We were interested to see if we would come across any similar groups in the process, as well. -kingalex456 (I hope my username doesn't further your idea of us "trying to take over the world". Alex is my first name, King being my last.)

  • Delete - non-encycolpedic entry. Wikipedia is not to be used for a communication system. Please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Epolk 08:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I apologize, I skimmed through the rules, there were an awful many of them. Kingalex456
  • No evidence of notability. Blanked by author - delete, can be speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft 11:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: There is nothing wrong with a group who wishes to debate and learn more about world issues. The group has done nothing wrong and only strives to become more acquainted with today's world.
    • The above vote was made by User KingAlex456 at 18:07, 11 Jun 2005. This same user voted to delete, above. A sock puppet without bothering to change socks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Let's hope he doesnt have foor odour. JamesBurns 04:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as juvenile vanity and vandolism. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I get the feeling that these guys don't really understand what Wikipedia exists for. -- Captain Disdain 20:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:44, 12 Jun 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, nothing to merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Scratchpad

This doesn't belong in Article or Talk space. RickK 07:25, Jun 11, 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. Golbez 07:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marlon Reyes

If the Morbid prisoners aren't notable, then neither is their guitarist. --Xcali 07:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --FCYTravis 10:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn (and a very poor attempt at an article). -- Infrogmation 03:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:47, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elektron (alloy)

Advertising, lots of trade mark icons thrown about in this article. RickK 07:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Concur, reads like advertising but the title makes it look as if ought to be a science article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, with changes I made to reduce the advertisement quality of the article. --Dachannien 12:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep on condition that '(alloy)' is removed from title and changed to something more accurate. We do have articles on Kevlar, Nylon, and Tyvek which are all trademarked materials. (Disclosure: I vfd'ed this article the first time it came around b/c it looked like advertising.) Monkeyman 13:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Monkeyman. DS1953 19:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. JPL uses this stuff. We should all remember that article quality is not a criterion for deletion. See deletion policy for more information about what to do about low article quality.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The article was not nominated based on article quality. It was nominated based on the fact that the content was pure advertising with no indication of notability. Don't lecture me on how to make nominations. RickK 21:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Advertisements about significant products can easily be cleaned up by simply removing any advertising material. As you're probably aware, there is no consensus on "notability" for alloys and the like. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand with the rewrite. JamesBurns 04:49, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paromita

Non-encyclopedic - definition Epolk 08:14, Jun 11, 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. Golbez 07:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parwez

Non-encyclopedic - definition Epolk 08:16, Jun 11, 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. Golbez 07:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Important

WP is not a dictionary. The lists will never be anything but POV. Andy M. 08:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Golbez 08:53, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nominator. --FCYTravis 10:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete My mom says I'm important. Can I add myself to the list? --Xcali 17:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there are articles about "important" (maybe a band,, a techincal term, etc). That's why [Wiktionary] was created, and this belongs there. (also check WP:WIN) drini ☎ 17:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Classic encyclopedia article. Can be infinitely expanded. No POV that I can see, it's reporting external sources that have labelled stuff "important". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • ... except in the sections on "important places", "important professions", and "important inventions", where it isn't. Removing the unsourced material leaves just List of Askmen.com's 10 most powerful men in the world and a duplicate of List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century. Uncle G 02:23, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
      • Well that's two. The article can be infinitely expanded to air hubs, ideas, world heritage sites, listed buildings, to name just four I grabbed off the first google page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • No, it's just one, as I said. All of your examples would be under more rational titles than "important" for English speakers, just as List of Askmen.com's 10 most powerful men in the world should be and List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century already is. "Important" is an absurd title for any of those. (The last one is actually about listed buildings, for example, as its very title tells you.) Adjectives do not make encyclopaedia article titles. Finding web pages about other things (such as world heritage sites and listed buildings — both of which also already have their own "lists of", note) that just happen to have the word "important" in their text does not demonstrate the contrary. You're grasping at straws. There's only one way that this title should be anything other than a redirect. I've already pointed it out. Uncle G 03:21, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inchaote nontopic. Alleged topic not covered by any "classic" encyclopedia. Does not represent any well-defined single topic or concept, therefore has no potential to become encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Straw man argument. This isn't a "classic" encyclopedia, assuming such a thing exists. I think I've encountered this misreading of the term "classic enclypedia article" before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't seem to be clearly about anything, and is just a collection of lists. This is what you get for not following the Wikipedia:naming conventions (adjectives). Only one of the lists is both (a) sourced and (b) not a substandard duplicate of an existing article, and that would be better served by being at List of Askmen.com's 10 most powerful men in the world, akin to the other list. Excise the duplicate and unsourced contents leaving that 1 list and Rename to List of Askmen.com's 10 most powerful men in the world, adjusting the resultant redirect from the adjective important to point to the noun importance, ready for an article there or someone to decide to write about the record label. Uncle G 02:23, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. All delete reasons given are persuasive and correct. Quale 19:44, 15 Jun 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. Golbez 07:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human body disposal

No potential to become encyclopedic and, uh, WP:NOT a how-to. FCYTravis 10:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The original version should certainly be trashed, as it is simply trolling drivel. However, there is probably an article to be written on this topic, since people's bodies generally have to be disposed of after they die: there is probably room for a top-level article over burial, cremation, mummification, Towers of Silence, and so forth, if it does not already exist. -- Karada 11:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've now completely rewritten the article from scratch. Please let me know what you think. I believe its now reasonable to keep this article. -- Karada 11:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (awesome rewrite), but move to Disposal of human corpses - human body disposal brings to mind the garbage disposal in my sink, and in any event a body can still be alive when disposed of. -- BD2412 talk 13:45, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. DS1953 19:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. That's a great rewrite, no doubt about it. That said, I think a move per BD2412 wouldn't be amiss. -- Captain Disdain 20:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • More than reasonable to keep this article. Well done User:Karada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with possible redirect. Well done Karada. Capitalistroadster 03:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep excellent rewrite. Fifelfoo 04:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep excellent rewrite. JamesBurns 04:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great job on the rewrite! Agree with BD2412 on renaming the article. --Dachannien 15:51, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaoyang

This text was created in order to push information about Laogai into the Wikipedia. However, it is a city article that should cover information about the city, this information is largely missing. The user who created this article (and many similar articles) is known for this practice in the German and French Wikipedias and has been blocked there for mainly this reason. Creating a lot of articles that contain only one detail about many cities is far away from POV. Sarcelles has been kindly asked to stop this activities (see here), and complete the articles already created with more necessary information. As he is not willing to do that, I propose one of his articles for deletion here in order to see what the opinion of the other contributors is. Herr Klugbeisser 10:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese cities#Laogai articles. Sarcelles has had a long history of starting long lists of city articles for the sole purpose of pushing information about Laogai. Much of the material that he includes is also of dubious credibility. -- ran (talk) 16:09, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, real place. Kappa 21:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please don't VfD to deal with content problems. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Real city with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Btw isn't there a city (or a district?) in eastern Guangdong with the same name? — Instantnood 14:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it's written 潮阳. (Not that this would matter on the English encyclopedia) -- ran (talk) 19:27, Jun 12, 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. Golbez 07:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of moffs

This does not belong here. As much as it may provide to the Star Wars universe, I do not see it creating articles for obscure moffs and grand moffs. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki is, and my intention is to keep it there, because it was copied from there, and was my work, but now what credit would I get for it? None. And so I put this up for deletion. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: The existence or lack thereof of the Star Wars Wiki should be irrelevant to keep / delete decisios here. Shimmin 12:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The wiki has no direct connection to Wikipedia, but I had to cite the source of the information. Regardless, it still has no reason to be here. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful list. Can be annotated to briefly describe any of the Moffs who don't have their own articles. Also concur with Shimmin. Kappa 15:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just Star Wars trivia. I have no problem with there being pages for notable moffs, like Tarkin (who, among with a few of his colleagues, is already listed in Moff, but listing a kazillion moffs just doesn't strike me as useful. After all, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. -- Captain Disdain 20:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete for us it's cruft, for Wookieepedia it's data. Also, what's a moff? And do we really want all those redlinks filled? RJFJR 22:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only two Moffs appeared in the films anyway. The rest are either made-up or expanded universe. — Phil Welch 00:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Really, Wookiepedia? Well, good luck. DJ Clayworth 02:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Canon moffs are addressed in Moff already. Wookiepedia is the place for this type of granular detail; I concur with Captain Disdain above. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please burn it, will link somewhere else SGCommand
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. Golbez 07:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norp

Neologism with no evidence to support it (a google search suggests that a "norp" is actually either a "normal ordinary regular person" or "Unpleasant and undesired activity usually imposed upon you by bosses, society, etc."). Kelly Martin 11:02, Jun 11, 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. Golbez 07:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-force

Advertising for a non-notable, unspecified website. smoddy 11:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. "Neo-force is an Unreal Tournament", although "Unreal" probably means something else... Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This user appears to be spamming VfD with hundreds of "keep, notable" votes. smoddy 15:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a link, which is where it should probably merge to. Sonic Mew 15:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • A failed attempt at spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as a useless article with no context. - Mike Rosoft 18:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 04:53, 12 Jun 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?) 21:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 86 (MBTA bus)

Sorry, but bus routes are not inherently encyclopedic. The MBTA article has a link to MBTA's website, however, and they will be able to provide much more up to date information about schedules and routings than Wikipedia can. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a transit timetable. --FCYTravis 11:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Comment" - User is voting "keep notable" on every VFD under the sun. --FCYTravis 17:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a lot of this sort of thing out there. Someone has created similar articles for a number of train routes. Should we hunt those down and delete them, too? --Xcali 17:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A train route is not a bus line. Train routes are inherently more stable and more encyclopedic because they generally involve physical objects - major stations and lines. Bus routes are nothing more than signs, and are easily (and frequently) changed and/or deleted at the whims of the transit authority. --FCYTravis 17:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This "unpopular" route is not encyclopedic. I do see the possibility of other bus routes being encyclopedic but not most. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete lacks notability --TimPope 23:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of MBTA bus routes, and redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of MBTA bus routes, though merging would be acceptable. -- Jonel 00:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Jonel (Sorry about that, Chief) Grutness...wha? 00:48, 12 Jun 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Bouios

One of the very best vanities I have seen. He gives it away, though, by saying that he likes soccer. smoddy 11:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Yes, I'm quite sure that an 18-year-old "revolutionised accounting standards." --FCYTravis 11:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Checked out the link in google. He did win a VCE Premiers Award for academic excellence. I'm from Australia, and although I have never heard of him, i did do a search on The Age Newspaper and Herald Sun (Australian papers) and there were a few articles on his accounting skills. I just dont think he's as elaborate as the article claims. But seems partly true.. SuperdooperB
    • - (User's first and only edit. --FCYTravis 10:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
    • User's first contribution to Wikipedia. He also removed all other votes. smoddy 12:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Is it not possible that someone as new as SuperdooperB removed it by accident? Your logical reasoning is flawed. You will not get into Oxford or Cambridge 13:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.89.168 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 Jun 2005.
        • Oh for heck's sake. I have better things to do with my life than debate whether or not an edit was malicious. My comment didn't and doesn't hint at any such thing. Don't put words into my mouth, and stop attacking me. smoddy 13:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A search for "Nicholas Bouios" received no Google hits. [25] HIH collapsed in 2001. While there was a Royal Commission, this bloke (14 at the time) had no connection with it. Possibly the only true statement in the article is that he likes soccer, which isn't verifiable nor is it notable. Capitalistroadster 14:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a student in 2003, he was given a VCE High Achiever award by the Premier of the Victoria government. That's it. The rest of the article appears to be a tissue of lies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete mostly unverifiable. JamesBurns 04:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Google test doesnt always work. Lot of work happens behind the scenes when academics are involved in public policy. Kind of like many top-notch economists working in FedReserve or helping the treasury of the country advising Governemt without anyone knowing about it. There are few articles in the age on him. Thi is one place google test doesnt work. 08:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.89.168 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 12 Jun 2005 UTC.
  • Delete. Received one notable award. Has apparently done nothing else of note. Socks also make me suspicious. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Definately notable but needs serious clean up. Article makes it look like he was a superstar. That newspaper begs to differ. Did some minor things to helpthough - nothing that saved Australia (my opinion) Planetpjs 01:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nobody supported by sockpuppets. - Skysmith 08:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, unsourced, non-notable in any case. Quale 19:49, 15 Jun 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 with Bahá'í Faith --cesarb 08:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bahá'í criticisms

Its a two anon crusade to make a POV fork from the standard Baha'i pages. In my opinion it should be merged inline with relevant text on articles such as Bahá'í Faith. It is pretty over-blown and emotive, let alone ignoring the religion's apologists, but that can be fixed once a correct location for this text has been found. Tomhab 11:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • comment Just noted that both IPs are from Taiwan - home and work? -- Tomhab 11:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • merge into an appropriate article, or perhaps rewrite. The article makes some interesting points, such as the apparent contradiction of game theory and the whole unity-of-all-humans business, so it's far more than just a "this religion sucks" diatribe. That said, it's still quite POV, and would be best balanced out with opposing statements. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge into other articles as it needs lots of attention. It makes a few valid points but reads otherwise as far too much of a POV rant. --Occamy 19:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as POV fork, content should only be merged where it can be sourced. Original research doesn't belong into Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 20:12, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Merge into Bahá'í Faith. JamesBurns 04:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Dawud, the guy who created this page. To merge it into "Baha'i Faith" would make that site overly long, no? It's really not possible to cover criticisms of it in less than article length.

On the POV thing, I do hope to be fair to all sides, and of course anybody else who feels like it can join in. As you can see I've just started. I'm not sure if this format is the best--maybe somebody has a better idea...? 218.167.177.148 06:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)Dawud

  • comment the problem is that it can appear an agressive attempt to criticise the religion in an article form. There is no similar page for any other religion that I've noticed. Criticisms would (in my opinion) be better in line with the text. Besides most of the arguments on the page are rather general against utopian thinking -- Tomhab 10:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything salvagable with the main Bahai page and delete this page. -CunningLinguist 12:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything salvageable with the main Baha'i page. Other faiths, for example Christianity, do not have their criticisms listed separately. --Idont Havaname 18:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tomhab, the "principles" section is more utopian than the others would be, if I (or anyone else) ever get around to writing them. (Doubtful in view of the visible momentum towards "merge or purge".) These principles are, in the main, the points emphasized by Baha'is when presenting their religion.

Maybe "criticisms" gives the wrong impression. Maybe "Baha'i controversies" would be better? Although that suggests intra-Baha'i discussions, and this is intended to be broader. Dawud 01:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that the form of voting carries on, no information needs be deleted, just merged where relevant into the other pages. I don't like the idea of controversies, because almost all of it is not controversial for Baha'is (which the title would suggest). Just for those who might consider being Baha'is, but find certain beliefs to be challenging. I've been busy at the minute so need a bit of time to re-read it all but a lot of it cuold get put on the main page in a much smaller summary. The Women on the UHJ is the most important one to mention (Baha'is don't really even understand it) and could be done in much more detail on the Universal House of Justice page (as well as a short amount on the main page).
Again this is just my view so needs ratification through a consensus. -- Tomhab 10:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think merging with the main page is a good idea. There's simply not enough room. The Women-in-the-House issue does deserve a mention on the UHJ page, sure--but not in this form, it's just not right for that context. Dawud 11:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • comment I view many of the "criticisms" of this page as providing interesting food for thought, though many are not in fact criticisms of the Baha'i faith at all (though they may be positions or theories that contain aspects contradictory to Baha'i belief). It doesn't necessarily make sense to include these on this page. That having been said, deleting the page seems like a bad idea to me. Some parts of the page pertain directly to the Baha'i faith and should not disappear altogether; incorporating these parts into other pages seems to me a recipe for their eventual extinction. One of the Baha'i religion's great strengths is its tolerance of a variety of opinions; I think that properly edited this page has something valuable to offer. -- Louigi 19:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Louigi.
Someone suggested turning this into a "Baha'i social principles" page. I am willing, if that would not violate the prohibition against escaping-deletion-through-renaming policy. This means abandoning parts II and III, and adding lots of quotes from Baha'i writings to beef these things up. Comments? Dawud 00:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • comment The page is great! Keep the page as it is! The title, content all are OK. It gives people who want to rant on an opportunity to do it, which keeps them off the main page. People reading the principles are smart enough to notice the utopian nature of the Faith's beliefs, and don't need any of this information in an introductory reading. External criticism of the Faith is something that Abdu'l Baha prayed for! And women were barred from the Guardianship as well as the House of Justice! More fuel for your fire. Cunado19 00:56, 22 Jun 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. Golbez 07:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faramarz Soleimani

Very possibly a vanity page, with no link from other pages. Not notable. roozbeh 13:04, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not noatble article hamidifar

  • Delete vanity. This article also looks suspiciously like a cut-and-paste job. JamesBurns 04:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete badly constructed vanity Adun 06:50, Jun 12, 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. I have counted one keep vote, the one signed as Kaosu Swert (anonymously made by User:67.40.193.210, and discounted the two others since their first edits were to this debate. I have counted three delete votes, the nomnators as well even though there are few edits on that account I don't suspect any sockpuppeteering from there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaosu Buntai

This page can either be regarded as an advertisment, for example the text: 'However, if you are interested in this organization and wish to know more, contact any Kaosu Buntai leader', or intimidation, for example: 'If the Kaosu member Kaosu Evil is on your board, contacting law enforcement is useless. His countrys poor internet laws allow him to do almost everything without getting punished. If the Kaosu Buntai decides to take over your board, you might as well give in to their demands. There is no way to evade infestation of the board. Giving in will save you the trouble of fighting them.' 84.67.78.101 13:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could have simply edited the content... we would not have minded. Besides, I don't even see a thing up there.

  • keep All listed above are gone from article. -Kaosu Swert
  • Delete - non-notable and unencyclopedic. --FCYTravis 06:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I removed the content yesterday...it was added without anybody talking to the leadership of the KB. -Kaosu Ducis
  • keep The Kaosu Buntai is known on many internet message boards and thus this article should remain here as to help prevent any future dissagreements between them and the abusive administrators. -AgentA
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. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MusicMann 279

This project has no evidence of existence other than two web-sites and a host of speculative posts on radio-related forums. Non-notable. The Best Cocktails In Manchester 13:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Note that VfDing this article was this user's first and so far only edit, so if we're to disregard Chubby Chicken's vote to keep (see below) we should probably not count the nominator as a valid vote to delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "The company involved in setting up the station estimated a June 2005 launch, but this has not taken place" Though it could be expanded and rewritten into an interesting article, come back when it has actually lannched and gained notability! Sonic Mew 14:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:20, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete It's proposed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Xcali 17:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actually I was thinking about expanding this recently, so perhaps it's lucky I didn't if it's going to be deleted. This is definitely more notable than the average proposed radio station, mainly because it's on longwave. There are now only two stations broadcasting on longwave in the UK and Ireland, both run as long-range repeater services by the two countries' state broadcasters, and the only longwave-only commercial station went out of business a few years ago. The possibility of starting another one has been talked about for years now. Great controversy surrounds it because running a longwave transmitter is thought to be unprofitable and fruitless these days, and these people are trying to use some new untested kind. This station has been trying to get started for quite some time and is discussed and argued about endlessly. This is much more notable than some proposed local mediumwave or FM station, for example. There are very few longwave stations in the world (see the article), so we should allow for the possibility that a new one might be notable before it's even started broadcasting. We should also remember that this station has a potential audience of the order of 100 million (I haven't seen the figures). If it really does never get off the ground I would probably vote to delete myself, but at the moment there appears to be a fairly reasonable chance that it will. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'm familiar with this project too, and while I believe that it's notable within the radio industry, there are a lot of radio projects out there that never get off the ground. Does Eric Wiltsher's little Slovakian project 1 merit its own page in Wikipedia, for example? At present, I don't feel that this project has any more notability than your average RSL or pirate resurrection pipe dream. Abstain for now. Smileyrepublic 16:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't know anything about that Slovakian one, but looking at the website it appears to be on the air and broadcasting, in which case it certainly is notable and deserves an article. I think this project is quite a lot more notable than an RSL because RSLs are confined to a small area and are ephemeral in nature. This being a project to launch a new national station, in fact not a national station but one broadcasting to several countries, on longwave as well, it seems rather more notable than a planned local station. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no notability yet - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 05:00, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tristam Benjamin

Google finds only wikipedia mirrors; even if he was a footballer, definitely not notable. Orphaned page, originally created at Tristam benjamin by a anon user. Dryazan 14:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless verified. -- Jonel 00:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:02, 12 Jun 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish supremacism

First, there's no reason to believe that this is a genuine topic; as the article stands, at least, it's a personal essay. Secondly, it seems to be in part an attempt to circumvent the VfD deletion of "Jewish ethnocentrism". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. As soon as I'd placed this article on VfD, the creator (IlluSionS667 (talk • contribs)) moved the contents to "Jewish supremacy", and made the VfDed page a redirect. I've returned matters to their original state. His other edits have all been concerned with this topic, all immediately revertable, some vandalistic. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I moved the contents to "Jewish supremacy", which was an already existing entry, with practically the same content. I decided that there was no need for duplicate entries. My supposed "vandalistic" edits, were merely the deletion of links that did not apply to the subject.(IlluSionS667 (talk • contribs))
    • However, removing the VfD notice from Jewish supremacism is indeed vandalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Presumably neologism coined for propaganda purposes. --Ian Pitchford 16:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. YAFN. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You 19:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. original research, someone's opinion. mikka (t) 19:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as Orignial Research. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - this gets a lot of googles (7,000 odd)- mainly relating to anti-semitic literature peddling the old hateful 'World Jewish Conspiracy' theories. I'm wondering whether this 'theory' is notable in such circles. If it is, then perhaps it should be kept - but its origins in those circles needs clearly stated. No vote for now (I don't see any original research here). --Doc (?) 19:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The text begins: "Jewish supremacism is the variety of ...". If you don't see a problem here, then try read more about difference between POV and fact. If one wants an article about a " 'theory' in some circles", the text should start, e.g., "Jewish supremacism is the term used in <some circles> to describe what they perceive as...". In any case, the article gives no reputable sources, hence original research. It does not matter that the term is all over google. It is not the job of wikipedian do describe something. His job is to report what is already described. mikka (t) 22:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I grant you all of the above, the article (if it had been kept) would need drastic clean-up. My question was about the subject matter itself not its awful presentation. --Doc (?) 22:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Kurgan5000yearsbc 21:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)Kurgan5000yearsbc20:02, 11 Jun 2005
    • This user has made three edits: two in February 2005 (voting to keep "Jewish ethnocentrism") and this one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 talk 21:33, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Comment This has been speedied by User:AndyL as 'neo-nazi propaganda'. Perhaps it should have been deleted (that seemed to be the emerging consensus) - but it seems to me a strange reason to speedy. POV is normally best adressed by 'clean-up' --Doc (?) 22:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. That isn't in the list of speedy criteria. I'll restore and we'll continue with discussion. The term seems to be one used by David Duke; he wrote a book Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. If I voted on this (I'm not voting, as it happens) I'd have to say keep and cleanup to describe the use of the term by neo-nazis like Duke. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • POV is not a speedy deletion criterion, but vandalism and recreation of deleted material is. Unless rewritten: delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 07:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's clearly not vandalism. It could qualify for speedy if the same material was originally deleted according to WP:DP. Do you have a reference for an instance of such policy-led deletion in this case? If so I would support a properly labelled speedy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Tony Sidaway for the most part on this one, but I just dont see one term used by David Duke to be notable to merit its own page. At best, merge with the David Duke page? -CunningLinguist 12:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it stands, the article is no more notable than an article on "Bob supremacism" would be (that being the belief among a subset of people named Bob that they are superior to those with other names). If the article were rewritten to actually discuss the topic beyond slapping two words together and defining the result, I could understand it remaining. Perhaps the people who have voted to keep this article might take a crack at editing this before deletion and creating a NPOV article that achieves this. --Dachannien 16:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Unsubstantiated and probably just agitprop. — RJH 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - See no reason to delete. We have Black supremacy and White supremacy.. The Jews are another race in which there lies a pocket of supremicists, it's no big deal to have an article on it. The phrase God's Chosen People sticks out for me right now. The article as it stands clearly needs to be expanded though. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: A) Jews are not a "race." B) You don't know what "chosenness" means if you make that kind of a statememnt. --Leifern 17:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep This article should not be deleted. The Jewish Defense League is a good example of Jewish supremacy.--Gramaic 08:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Changed my mind. I agreed with Leifern's comment above.--Gramaic 07:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment This is libel, the JDL has no such views Kuratowski's Ghost 14:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no significant group that believes "the jewish race is superior and should rule over other races". Even the Jewish Defense League does not say this.--Pharos 09:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. RK 17:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: True enough, however a staggering number of antisemites believe "chosenness" means just exactly that. Tomer TALK 04:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, obvious attempt to circumvent VfD on previously deleted Jewish ethnocentrism. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this content without hesitation. If it really gets that many google hits tho, perhaps this should really be a #REDIRECT to Jews as a chosen people. Tomer TALK 04:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not sure that there could not be a legitimate article on this topic. However, the current article is simply tautological. If someone can cite examples of actual Jewish supremacists, I would reconsider. However, my suspicion is that this is merely an anti-Semitic claim of the existence of an entirely imaginary ideology. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, no refs. --Viriditas | Talk 04:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because it looks like a Neo-Nazi inversion of their own own anti-Semitic hallucinations. IZAK 05:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is complicated. There is such a concept as "Jewish supremacy" - the idea that Jews believe themselves to be superior to other races. However, I've never heard of anyone other than anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists say that Jews wish to rule the world (and those folks tend to think that such domination has already been achieved). I highly doubt that even the minority of ethnocentric Jews who think they're better than everyone else want to rule over anything besides Israel. The world is, after all, rather a mess,and sternly believing that you're God's chosen for the next world makes this one seem unimportant by comparison. I'd say there should be an article on the peculiar nature of Jewish ethnocentrism, but the suggestion that Jews want to dominate other groups is hokum, so delete what's here now and start from scratch. -- BD2412 talk 06:15, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
    • Comment. We don't need to delete, then. Just rewrite the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • D-E-L-E-T-E. POV fork. JFW | T@lk 07:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Indrian 08:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per BD2412's convoluted logic. Jewish ethnocentrism covers the topic well. There's room for improvement, but this article isn't it. -Willmcw 08:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - what Mel said. --Mrfixter 08:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -anti semitic garbage. Also, some people who have made incredibly ignorant statements should first brush up on the subject before proposing to keep this bad excuse for an article.(Guy Montag 09:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete - Used by almost no one except David Dukeites. --FCYTravis 09:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Troll. Mikeage 09:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I've made too many comments on this type of issue. My opinion is clear. Evolver of Borg 20:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the alleged phenomenon is notable as such, substantiating evidence needs to be forthcoming. El_C 11:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, and no evidence of Jewish supremacy (at least not in the same context as of White supremacy). Legitimate discussion of the Chosen People belief is covered in Jews as a chosen people. This article is unnecessary, and inherently POV. Impi 12:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Refers to an alleged phenomenon not attested in any legitimate source and appears to have been invented expressly for the purpose of misleading people into believing that such a phenomonon exists. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - How many attempts have there been now to make an encyclopedia entry out of a canard? --Leifern 17:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - A classic example of POV-pushing. gidonb 00:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Strong sense of déja vu here. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Almog 03:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this Nazi filth. Neutralitytalk 03:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with redirect to Psychological projection#White_supremacist Gzuckier 04:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Gzuckier. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Nahum 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons given above by others. -- uriber 17:04, 16 Jun 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 ambiguous.

I am calling this as a "delete" in deference to the fairly well established precedent that articles about names are really dictionary entries, not encyclopedia articles. As Uncle G points out below, the exceptions are disambiguation pages, not articles about the name. Since this page only lists a single person (who by the way does not yet have an article), it does not qualify as a disambiguation page. I have elected not to transwiki the article to Wiktionary because there is not enough content to convince me that they would accept it. (The content would be "Herner is a german originated family name.")

This delete decision is made without prejudice if either 1) the article is re-created in Wiktionary as an article about the name or 2) the content is used to create a properly-named stub about the one person listed as an example (that content being "Janos Herner is the creator of the TimeWheel, the monument of time erected in Hungary, Europe.").

I am electing not to create the stub on Mr Herner merely because I can find no evidence that he would meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies but that is a personal decision, not a concensus VfD decision. Rossami (talk) 21:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herner

This is not an article, at most it might be a (sub-)stub. Adam78 14:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep can be developed, if I am not mistaken, there are articles on other names. You 19:19, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Usually they are name disambiguations (such as Bush or Remington). Rarely, they are on people commonly known solely by a single name (such as Rasputin or Houdini). This is not the case here. The actual subject of this article, Janos Herner (more properly János Herner, it seems), is not commonly known as "Herner". Rename and Delete redirect. Uncle G 02:49, 2005 Jun 12 (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 move to user space.

"What links here" clearly shows that there are several notable David Hendersons. This does not appear to be the person cited in any of those articles. Rossami (talk) 21:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Henderson

Self-promotion from User:Dehenderson. May be notable--journalist with one published book--but self-posting flies in the face of Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox #6, and "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." prominently displayed on every 'new article' edit window. Niteowlneils 15:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:22, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete It might be notable, but it is violation of policy. It would be more convincingly notable if someone else thought he was worthy of an article. Sonic Mew 15:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy He's borderline notable, but given that it appears to have come from him, I'd say userfy to User:Dehenderson. --Xcali 17:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy You 19:19, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy per Sonic Mew. Karol 10:39, Jun 12, 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. Golbez 07:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julia wray

Friend-promotion from User:Dehenderson. Just some chiropractor--less than 80 displayed hits for "Julia wray", many not her, and only 14 displayed hits for "Julia wray" alexandria, and some are still not her. Niteowlneils 15:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:22, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete Lots of chiropractors out there. I don't see why this one is notable. --Xcali 17:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, and I warn Chubby Chicken right now to stop trolling the VfD pages and vandalizing User pages. RickK 19:23, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. You 20:01, Jun 11, 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. Golbez 07:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boomercafe

Self-promotion from User:Dehenderson ("Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." prominently displayed on every 'new article' edit window.). Just another website--only 650 hits, and an Alexa rank of only 650,472. Niteowlneils 15:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy ad. --Xcali 17:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. You 19:18, Jun 11, 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. Golbez 07:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TheBombermanArmy

Blurb about a "regroupment of players" in an online game. No internal links to it, no edits in two months since creation, parts read like a copy-and-paste from a FAQ. Looks likely to be a vanity page, self-promotion. Shimgray 15:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete clancruft --Xcali 17:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While some clans might deserve a spot (barely), I know the game in question, and the clan is relatively non-notable anyway. ral315 04:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV vanity Adun 06:52, Jun 12, 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. Golbez 07:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] East Asian supremacy

The article itself accepts that this is in fact not a view held by East Asians (a group not in fact defined), but refers vaguely to one controversial author. No case has been made for this as a genuine position and encyclopædic topic. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not clear what "notable" means here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - User is voting keep notable on every VFD under the sun. --FCYTravis 17:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As the article says, it isnt really a concept ascribed to by East Asians. ~~~~ 16:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need for yet another page on Rushton and his fringe ideas.--Ian Pitchford 17:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR --Xcali 17:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --FCYTravis 17:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be notable enough. You 19:17, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Revolución 20:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rushton --Doc (?) 20:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -CunningLinguist 12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - "East Asian" is far too broad. Last I checked the Hans and the Japanese, both East Asian, had pockets which thought the other .. shall we say less than supreme! --Irishpunktom\talk 00:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable and misused term. mikka (t) 02:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. East Asians do not believe this; I don't even think Rushton believes this: amazingly enough, whites still rank "High" in his measure of culture despite their supposedly mediocre brains.--Pharos 09:29, 14 Jun 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. Golbez 07:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TheBlindParrot

Clear vanity page. Page was blanked when I found it, now reverted (almost speedied it before noticing); otherwise, no edits since creation. Shimgray 15:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:12, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete, newbie test, joke. Kappa 15:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy nonsense. gamecruft at best. --Xcali 17:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Newbie test. You 19:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- BD2412 talk 20:12, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh, Parrot, you do get around. -- Captain Disdain 20:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:19, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grocery Warning

This article is about a book by Mike Adams. An article about The Five Soft Drink Monsters, another one of his books, was already deleted. Apparently this article was overlooked. And who would the article's author be? Yes, Andrew Lin... Aecis 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete lincruft --Xcali 18:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nominator. --FCYTravis 18:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Xcali. -- BD2412 talk 20:05, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Keep!!
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 --cesarb 09:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Cobra (motion)

This gesture is not widely known as "the cobra." This page is essentially a joke. Tcassedy 15:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • keep notable Chubby Chicken 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Above recently created account, Chubby Chicken, is voting "keep, notable" for numerous clearly non-notable (indeed bordering on speedy) articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412 talk 20:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • Comment. LOL "recently created".
  • Weak delete Media outlets/reviewers have often noted that Trump's hand gesture looks like a cobra, but I don't know that this has actually gained acceptance as a name. --Xcali 17:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No one has notably referred to the hand gesture as "The Cobra". -- BD2412 talk 20:09, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a decent page. I would say to merge with Donald Trump, but it would probably look out of place there. So keep, in the absence of anything better to do with it. Bizud 01:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Give it the finger. humblefool® 21:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mildly amusing nonsense. Indrian 08:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. *if* the content can be verified, it should be a section in gesture. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 04:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- I think that the "Cobra gesture" does not need it's own article. I think that somebody could add the "You're Fired" gesture to the existing Donald Trump page. Also, the so-called "Cobra gesture" was only used in season 1 of "The Apprentice". The past two seasons, Trump has used the "Pointing gun" motion. At the end of the day, I think that we could just add a comment about the "you're fired gesture" to the Donald Trump page. This page is useless and consuming space. --- Brendantait 14:01, Jun 21, 2005

  • Delete -- It's funny, but not a serious entry for the encylopedia. -Uris 20:41, 21 Jun 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. Golbez 07:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zachery Allen Starkey

Great picture, but unencyclopedic vanity page. --Ian Pitchford 16:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Well there is the drummer Zak Starkey (son of Ringo)- redirect if his middle name is Allen, but otherwise delete.Dunc|☺ 17:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems that his name is actually just Zak, so probably not a useful redirect... delete, I guess. Shimgray 17:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, nothing to redirect to. -- BD2412 talk 20:08, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. Zach didn't put it up, a guy named Jed did, who Starkey doesn't even know. Zach doesn't even know it's there. If you lived in Columbus, and saw how ubiquitous this guy is,... you'd understand why he needs an entry. - Anders Maxso
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 --cesarb 09:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ear piece bandit

Unfortunately, armed bank robberies are common enough not to be usually notable. Physchim62 16:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/unkn/earpiece.htm --It seems slightly more well known than an ordinary armed robbery and compared to some of the stuff we keep I think it meets notability requirements. gren 16:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Off the bat, I'm inclined to think that as a rule of thumb, anyone who makes the FBI's Most Wanted list has gained enough notoriety to be notable enough. That said, I know that a lot of these people aren't that notable -- they're just criminals who haven't been caught. Still, at least this guy does have a catchy nickname and some notoriety... Anyway, this appears to be a copyright violation, as the text has been lifted from the FBI wanted poster linked above, so it'd have to be rewritten. -- Captain Disdain 20:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • PD as a product of the U.S. federal government? Tupsharru 23:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That might be true... but you'd still need to cite it (even if copying is legitimate) and it wouldn't make for a very good article just reading like it did there would it? gren 02:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Most Wanted Posters are in the public domain -- the FBI wants them copied and transmitted as far and wide as possible. Xoloz 04:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Physchim62 and JamesBurns. Quale 19:54, 15 Jun 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. Rossami (talk) 21:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King of Pop

Inherently POV.

  • Clean up
  • Delete ~~~~ 16:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect... this title is definitely well known as being used with Jackson. I don't think it's any more POV than "Prophet Muhammad" or "Prophet Bahá'u'lláh" -all are titles given to them that not everyone accepts...? I think that makes sense gren 17:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But we don't allow "Jesus Christ", only "Jesus". And Muhammad is listed under "Muhammad" rather than "Prophet Muhammad", so I don't see how that is an argument. ~~~~ 11:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suppose then you'd agree with the redirect part of my statement. gren 17:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Well known title, used by many people, and this is a good NPOV stub. sjorford →•← 17:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable title. You 19:59, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Might need a little cleanup, but is in use. humblefool® 21:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Michael Jackson and redirect. This is almost a dicdef. 23skidoo 21:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Michael Jackson. Nestea 21:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — Phil Welch 00:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. The article itself doesn't deserve a page (hell, why not create Jacko, Wacko Jacko, Court TV's favorite topic, etc.). However, it is a well-known title, and it should be sent to the main M. Jackson page.
  • Delete POV not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Michael Jackson --Xcali 05:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, along with Wacko Jacko, with Michael Jackson. --Idont Havaname 18:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Steve block 19:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is kept how many of these will there be? The king, The king of rock and roll, The godfather of soul? Steve block 19:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a commonly given name to Michael Jackson... just like The King links to Elvis. I don't believe any of those others you mentioned are prominent. gren 20:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'll change my vote to Redirect to Michael Jackson. I'd argue it's as prominent as James Brown being the Godfather of Soul though.
  • Redirect to Michael Jackson. Why does this require its own article? carmeld1 00:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect, unless another King of Pop is suggested (as Jacko is a disambiguation...) Samaritan 21:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. It's a highly common epithet for Michael Jackson (one that is used for no one else), but no need to give it an independent article. Postdlf 00:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect ditto above Saswann 17:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but needs cleaning-up to be whiter-than-white. The last sentence is a good candidate for BJAODN. Physchim62 20:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Michael Jackson (literally copy, summarize a bit, wikify, and paste) and then redirect). --FuriousFreddy 01:17, 20 Jun 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 as an admitted neologism. (It may be more acceptable in Wiktionary but you'd have to check their rules on neologisms carefully.) Rossami (talk) 21:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shejaculation

If anything it's a neologism for female ejaculation and should be direct there. gren 16:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This word has a gender specific use. We do not use "male ejaculation" in speech, it is already understood. Our language is alive and adaptable and because it is, "shejaculation" should stay. I've googled the word and am finding hits for it. The importance of Wikipedia is its usefulness in identifying modern words and phrases.

  • Delete - Neologism. --FCYTravis 19:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete --Gballsout

Do not delete. This word should ABSOLUTELY be kept...it is an important step in furthering the language of sexuality. - zipthunk

DO NOT DELETE! This word is a part of New York vernacular, and I've seen it on various websites. To add it to Wikipedia would serve all who utilize the website. - Allegra Riggio

  • merge anything not already there into female ejaculation, and then delete. The word is a neologism, and Wikipedia is not the place to introduce new words. Thue | talk 21:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • merge Female ejaculation and delete, shejaculation is a neologism that just hasn't caught on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything that isn't total baloney to Female ejaculation and delete this neologism. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Wikipedia documents established concepts and usage. It is not Wikipedia's mission to promote new phrases, however valuable or worthy of adoption they may be. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In light of the comments "anything useful should be merged," I want to stress that the entry itself should be deleted, and that the acting sysop should note that almost everyone so far seems to agree about that. If there is material to merge, this means extra work for the sysop, because a merge-and-delete requires a laborious procedure to merge the history and remain GFDL-friendly, so "merge-and-delete" votes, though valid, are discouraged. (On reviewing this article and Female ejaculation I don't see anything useful to merge. In fact this article contains POV statements that are well discussed in an NPOV way in Female ejaculation, so my vote remains a simple delete). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpbsmith (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 Jun 2005.
    • Comment. That sounds very odd to me. We're editors. Editing is what we do. To write off material simply because it's been misfiled strikes me as the height of laziness. I'll be bold and do the merge myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Female ejaculation. JamesBurns 05:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete per Tony. --Xcali 05:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seems already to be a consensus and since I'm the author of the entry, I'll put my two cents in. Do what you will, it's of no real importance. I coined the word and felt pretty good about it. Granted, it is merely a new synonym for "Female ejaculation" but as a feminist, I wanted to give it its own name. It was concise and direct and I thought since the culture of this particular sexual act was still relatively unknown and misunderstood, this word would help draw attention and pique the curiosity of people who wished to learn.

When I googled the word 7 weeks ago, there were no returns. Now there are a few, mostly related to my original article, but oddly two porn sites have picked it up. Now what's more validating than that?

When I visited this site yesterday, I searched the word and no results were returned. However, there was a friendly invitation to create an entry for it. So, I read the rules and didn't seem to be violating any of them (I'm not making money, it wasn't gibberish) and made my entry.

Certainly my ego is involved in making this entry, but I don't think it's more than a healthy one. So, it's of no importance that it remains here.

Perhaps I will get lucky and someday the word will enter the common vernacular and it will be entered by someone else. Until then....

Cheers! gballsout

  • Thanks for being understanding about it. This is no big deal, I encourage you to continue to contribute, and when the word does enter the vernacular it will be very appropriate to have an entry about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I found an entry in Urban Slang. I must say, though I know I came up with the term independantly, I was sad to find it was entered in Feb. [26]
  • Delete, neolojism. --W(t) 12:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • "neolojism"---That guy wins!! gballsout
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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie schultz

Text content is Hi! My name is Melanie Schultz and I'm really happy in this photo.. Really glad for you Melanie, but that doesn't make you worth a Wikipedia entry! Physchim62 17:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, very short article with little or no context. --W(t) 17:56, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Speedy patent vanity --Xcali 18:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedied--"no context, possible personal attack, not much but an external link". Niteowlneils 18:09, 11 Jun 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. No concensus was reached, however, on whether the article should be "kept as is" or "kept as a redirect". Further discussions on that topic should be held on the article's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 21:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mozilla (disambiguation)

I moved disambiguation back to Mozilla, and expanded so that the newbies will know more about the various use of "Mozilla" without visiting every articles. It is now similar to the Netscape article. minghong 17:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Just redirect it back to Mozilla then. No need for vfd.Dunc|☺ 18:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Although, there really isn't any need to keep this page as a redirect now; it's not something anybody is likely to type in directly, and there doesn't seem to be anybody linking to it. Delete.
  • Redirect. Kappa 21:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think this is an improvement at all. Almost without exception, references to Mozilla are to the current Mozilla browser, and this should be the primary topic of Mozilla. You have split off Mozilla Application Suite (which was formerly a redirect to Mozilla with material from Mozilla, and this probably breaks the GFDL. Put the other stuff in a separate article if you like, but really when I type Mozilla I expect to see an article about a piece of software, not an essay about the history of the use of the word. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason why you don't see a browser in Mozilla is the same as that in Netscape. Both the word "Mozilla" and "Netscape" has been used for too many things. In fact, "Mozilla" is now turning into an adjective for Mozilla technologies and related stuffs... Also, since there will be no Mozilla 1.8, I think it is a good time to move the browser away from the Mozilla article. --minghong 06:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Tony. JamesBurns 05:27, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gatu

Totally unverifiable and probably fancruft: sounds like someone made this up. Ambush Commander 17:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, good laugh though, esp. the badly photoshopped picture. humblefool® 21:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 05:28, 12 Jun 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Meaningless connection

We don't need to catalogue every possible way of vandalising, I'm not quite sure what the point behind this page is. --W(t) 17:54, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

  • Delete. Actually, it wouldn't hurt to have a catalog of common forms of vandalism, so folks would have some guidance on things to look for. That being said, this ain't it. -- BD2412 talk 19:19, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this kind of vandalism never, or hardly ever, happens, edit the page to say so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Tony Sidaway. "Meaningless" has a propensity to be a subjective thing and I expect only extreme cases would find all agreeing that a particular connection is "meaningless". Therefore it is a subject of "vandalism" which is valid (although I expect incidences will more often than not be a case of mis-guided-ness than vandalism").
  • Delete I don't think the article makes sense. Even with a list of vandalism methods, we don't need articles like this for each one. --Xcali 05:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. this should exist only as material in a page called Wikipedia: Methods of vandalism or some such. The category Wikipedia Vandalism does not include any other articles about methods. Until there is an attempt at a more comprehensive approach to the subject, this article as such is meaningless. (Certainly no one is going to be searching under the term "Meaningless connection"). carmeld1 01:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not convinced Meaningless connections should be called vandalism. If it really is vandalism, then it should be mentioned on Wikipedia:Vandalism, not on its own page. Angela. 06:42, Jun 20, 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. Golbez 07:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willem Kistemaker

Vanity. Singer working on first CD. --Xcali 18:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. You 19:57, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. If the CD sells well an article can be added at that time MarkS 20:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:29, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BHZ and Matt Seelye

Discussion board vanity. (Burninghorizon.com has an Alexa rank of over 900.000.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete both, non-notable, vanity. -- BD2412 talk 19:19, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete, preferably speedy BHZ, as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/BHZ. 6 deletes, 2 keeps, and 1 merge or delete is hardy no consensus. —Xezbeth 19:23, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, website advertising and vanity. JamesBurns 05:30, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Niels Buit

26 hits hardly seems enough for a "famous" person. --Xcali 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • But he's got street cred! Oh, well, if you must, delete. humblefool® 21:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity. Delete. — Phil Welch 00:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:30, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Savoir-faire/model

No content other than stub marker. You 19:09, Jun 11, 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. Golbez 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toz Family of Lebanon

First, there's no "Toz family in Lebanon", Second this article is clearly a patent nonsense, sinse "Toz" means "Ass" in Arabic, and "Khara", at the end of article, means "Shit". 500LL 19:31, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable even if it isn't nonsense. You 19:48, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 02:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 05:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also marked the article as non-factual. — Phil Welch 16:56, 13 Jun 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. —Xezbeth 08:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rexxar

non-notable. Complete text is: Rexxar is a Mok'nathal. He is half-ogre half-orc and is a beastmaster. Somebody's RPG character. delete RJFJR 19:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Bordering on nonsense. You 19:47, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Rexxar is the main character in the Warcraft III expansion set's bonus mini-campaign (see Warcraft III#Orc Mini-Campaign. -- Jonel 00:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Short article with very little content" - I would have speedied this. Delete DJ Clayworth 02:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 05:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, but to Warcraft Universe rather than Warcraft III, as the character exists in Warcraft's lore beyond Warcraft III (he's an NPC in World of Warcraft, for example). --Dachannien 16:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. He's not "somebody's RPG character", but there is too little material to fill an article of his own. - Sikon 10:29, 13 Jun 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. Golbez 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American holiness

  • Delete Revolución 19:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep You 19:47, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't find either of the above votes terribly persuasive, but it gets 4,350 google hits [27] so it's probably something wikipedia should be explaining. Keep. Kappa 21:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep only if expanded. — Phil Welch 00:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • American holiness is no different from any other. Delete, or redirect if that fails. DJ Clayworth 02:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable phrase. JamesBurns 05:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - opaque, if not meaningless, phrase for the concept described in such brevity --Mothperson 17:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 17:47, Jun 13, 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. Golbez 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Yoshida

  • Delete vanity. Revolución 19:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. You 19:46, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do all the 28,000 Google hits on "Adam Yoshida" concern this person? Is that normal for a blogger? Tupsharru 09:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. No, all the 28,000 google hits do not pertain to the blogger, many are just random people online who share the same name. "Adam Yoshida"+ultra-conservative nets less than 200 results. Furthermore, nearly all of the results that do pertain to this man originate either on his own blog, or on "DoucheBlog" which is some sort of website that criticizes him. Not notable. -CunningLinguist 12:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree and vote Keep. Adam Yoshida is quite notable in the blogosphere (and on Usenet). I had heard of him long before this article was created. Firebug 03:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • By the way, I can assure you that if Yoshida himself had actually written this article, it would have been nowhere near this sober. Firebug 03:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP [I believe that deleting this article would constitute censorship of valid viewpoints]. STORM LEGION666 15:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) — (The text in brackets was originally written by Newkidd and has been refactored by android per WP:RPA.)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, STORM LEGION666. I've noticed that, with you're newly created user account, you've already managed to cast votes much like this one in seven vfd's (although you've done nothing else). -- BD2412 talk 16:23, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
I have reported this user for Vandalism in progress. Please remove this paragraph when problem solved. -Snorre/Antwelm 16:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, by the way. Vanity. -- BD2412 talk 16:23, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable.mikka (t) 16:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 19:59, 15 Jun 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 and move. Moved to Government College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Khandola. Eugene van der Pijll 20:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Govt college khandola

This is non notable. I think it should either be deleted or merged with the education section of Goa. It certainly doesn't deserve its own page.WAvegetarian 19:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, expand, move to better title. Fairly settled policy that colleges/universities are inherently notable - let's not have a Europe/America/Australia bias about it. -- BD2412 talk 21:27, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Keep expand and re-title. Tertiary institutions are generally considered to be notable. Capitalistroadster 23:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We're keeping articles about primary schools, so it doesn't seem right to delete articles about degree-awarding institutions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable college. JamesBurns 05:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Send to Cleanup for a month, and delete if no improvement. Niteowlneils 22:46, 14 Jun 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. Golbez 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lendyl Croydon D�Souza

Another patent vanity. --Xcali 02:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, pretty please. -- Hadal 02:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, resume, does not assert notability. Vandalized vote.Wikibofh 04:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. You 19:25, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:34, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Blauvelt Marshall

Non-notable person MarkS 20:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete If person is notable, there's nothing to show it. You 20:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. King Nine 20:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --FCYTravis 00:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:35, 12 Jun 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. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physical space

This article has waited more than 18 months for cleanup and NPOVing, but I'll judge nobody volunteered, because the article is a dead end and should be deleted. It's somewhere between original research and an essay, free from knowledge about physics and mathematics. Citing a comedian in the intro sentence very much sets the context for this article. --Pjacobi 20:02, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

  • There might be an article on something called physical space, however, this isn't, and never will be, it. Delete. humblefool® 21:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can't understand why this perfectly good article on an encyclopedic topic has been listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is far from ideally written, but it is an honest attempt at defining an obviously encyclopedic concept. Back to Cleanup, I say. Xoloz 04:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • We are not in the business of honoring honest attempts if the result is unencyclopedic and misleading. --Pjacobi 15:04, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)


Delete - most of this article is patent nonsense. For example, this quote,

"The concept of a 'curved space' is somewhat logically flawed because space can be defined by the distance between two objects, which is usually by definition always given as a straight line. Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships.
However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual space."

totally ignores the work of Riemann, Lobachevsky, Einstein, and all the research since them on curved spacetimes. It is a piece of bad luck in one way that you can envision most 2-spaces pretty well (exception: the Klein bottle ) by imbedding them in 3-space. It does help elementary teaching, but it gives the false impression that curved geometries can "always" be regarded as artifacts of selecting a lower dimensional space out of a higher one. That approach has not been useful. I once asked a mathematician how many dimensions of Euclidean space you would have to use to imbed a curved 4 dimensional space and I do not remember the answer, but it was large - I believe 8 or more. So it "helps" you to think of curved 3-surfaces as imbedded in Euclidean 3-space (so long as you do not try to detour across the unoccupied part of that 3-space) but it does not help to envision 3 and 4 dimensional curved spaces stuck in higher-dimensional flat spaces.

I realize that this is supposed to be an elementary discussion and evidently from the "save" votes it has made some sense to some people, but Wikipedia ought to provide a jumping off place for the more serious student, and the idea of using a straight line to connect two points on a 2-sphere and use it as the shortest path is very misleading. The shortest path is the arc of a great circle. Spherical triangles have interior angles that almost never total to two right angles, and you can find that in high school level texts on solid geometry. So it should be reasonable to expect readers of Wikipedia to understand that on the surface of a sphere, the "straight lines" are arcs of great circles, and in higher-dimensional spaces the geodesics will not be related to any Euclidean metric. Pdn 17:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      • I don't find this "misleading," only incomplete and a bit rough. Wikis are all about honest attempts. I can't imagine a good article arising ex nihilo Xoloz 08:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What can I do but repeat: It is very misleading to speak of a straight line cutting between two points on a sphere (as a chord) when one is describing the curved geometry of the sphere. You are jumping out of the space you are talking about, and in 3 and 4 dimensions this may require adjoining many more. The point of studying curves spaces and spacetimes is to describe ways to measure that curvature and deal with its physical effects without adjoining all sorts of additional dimensions so we can feel happier thinking of the curved space as a subset of a larger flat space. Pdn 03:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. This topic is encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (changed to Abstain). The article in its current state is seriously wrong; I can't understand why anybody would call it a "perfectly good article". I do not see what kind of article can be written about physical space, but if there is, starting all over again is much simpler than cleaning up the article (which would leave two or three sentences). -- Jitse Niesen 11:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. If the article is so radically wrong, give it a major rewrite. Throwing our hands up and saying the entire thing must be deleted seems a bit drastic. What bits are so horrible anyway? The Euclidean approximation, the curvature of space-time? I think the author loses the plot around the last three paragraphs, but this problem can be solved by deleting or rewriting the las6t three paragraphs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I don't want to rewrite it, because I do not know what to write about physical space. Apparently, nobody else wanted to rewrite it for more than a year. Of course, if somebody were to rewrite it and show me that there is a decent article, I'll happily change my vote, but if not, it's better to start all over again. The only part of the article that is good is the second paragraph (In everyday experience ... 180 degrees). The next two paragraphs are passable, I don't know what the section titled Space-time wants to say, the start of the section titled Curved space-time is misleading in several aspects ("[time and space] are the same thing", "[flat spacetime] is a strange intermediate state"), and the part from "The concept of a 'curved space' is logically flawed" is wrong (all IMHO, of course). -- Jitse Niesen 12:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. So you're saying the article has content problems but you can't or won't rewrite it. Then stick a cleanup template on it. Content problems are not valid reasons for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I am saying that the article is not encyclopaedic, which is a valid reason for deletion. I even think that physical space is not an encyclopaedic topic, but I am not so certain about that. -- Jitse Niesen 19:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I must say I find the idea that the concepts of space, space-time, relativity and whatnot are not encyclopedic...well, rather novel. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree Tony. I don't know enough about the article to rewrite it, but I do know enough from college physics and history of science classes to declare almost absolutely that the topic is a cornerstone of all the physical sciences. A stub is better than nothing here. Xoloz 02:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I did not say that space is not an encyclopaedic topic, what I said is that I think that physical space is not an encyclopaedic topic. After the 14 June rewrite by Steve, I still do not like the article very much for the reasons given by Splash below, but I am not so keen anymore to see it deleted, so I'm changing my vote to abstain. However, I do think that the article should be moved to space (what does the adjective physical mean in physical space?). The current article at space can then either be moved to space (disambiguation) or merged in. Jitse Niesen 12:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Steve block 19:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've had a go at a clean up, but I'm not sure it's any better off. Steve block 22:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Wonderful Wikification, Steve! Xoloz 08:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote Keep. Its true that this article is not the model of encyclopaedic, but it is hardly terrible. There are a lot of far more prejudicial/un-encyclopaedic articles out there. There seems to be little reason to delete this. Tombride 21:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is quite good imo, just a little on the abstract side. needs a bit of clearing up and expanding, wkifiying, sunja 22:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — Seems fine as an article topic. There's always room for improvement, but I don't believe delete is at all justified. — RJH 16:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think anyone's saying space is not an encyclopaedic topic, but this article is definitely not 'perfectly good'; it's seriously misleading in places and has quite an anti-relativity slant. In addition, articles available via Space discuss the relevant issues in a neutral and encyclopaedic way. This article is pretty much a POV fork, gives us nothing that we don't already have, and has major factual problems, so it should be deleted. Worldtraveller 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment What you're describing above appears to me to be, at best, a case for a redirect to Space. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yep, wouldn't see any harm in that - as long as the content is not merged anywhere, that often seems to be the implication of redirect votes. Worldtraveller 18:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or, if that fails, redirect to space. William M. Connolley 18:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. This is redundent with space. --EMS | Talk 18:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've had a further go if anyone wants to have a look and see if it changes their mind? Steve block 21:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also, could people not remove the vfd template please. Steve block 21:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This includes such loopy phrases as: "physical space can be characterized (in western ideology) by being three-dimensional" - I'll check with my friends with Eastern ideologies, but I reckon they'd go with 3D space too. Also, that entire para is filled with gibberish. The other sections amount to little more than brief summaries of areas that have their own articles, and this article contributes nothing to any of them - so there's not even a case for Merge. Save the physical space on Wikipedia's servers. -Splash 23:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no main article on the psychology of space, so that section would best be saved somewhere. I also think it is useful to have a page on space which is similar to that of Time because I for one don't understand half of what is written on all the other very complicated space pages. I would have gone further and moved the space (philosophy) and space (astronomy) across, but felt that was too important a change to pull willy nilly. Steve block 06:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll grant that the first two sentences of the 'Psychology of Space' could be kept, and merged into psychology, but that's all. All the rest of that section is a wordy list to other articles to which it really doens't contribute anything. Moreover, there is already an article on Space (physics) which is stubby but adequate and it links to Space (philosophy) which this article appears wish it was. -Splash 11:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Hmm. By that definition, any article which only offers up an overview of a topic and provides pointers to better understanding might as well be deleted then. Obviously that section is a wordy list of links, outlining their relevance to the topic, and is meant to serve as a pointer to readers. Also note that one of those links will be orphaned if this page is deleted. As for the article on Space (physics), I don't think that serves any purpose that this page would. Nowhere on wikipedia is an overview of the subject of physical space given, all the information seems to be herded into seperate pools, where it stagnates. I couldn't find an area which addressed the use of space in terms of buildings and farmning, given an overview of the situation, which is something I believe is encyclopaedic. Steve block 12:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In terms of the specific topics you mention, architecture links to space syntax, and farming lists a whole bunch of methods which are implicitly means of using space in farming. Of course, the space where Splash lives, space where Splash is sitting and space where Splash keeps his books articles could be merged into this one - along with every other object, philosophy, activity...that impinges on space. This article has no standalone value since everything it wishes it had said is already dealt with, implcitly or explicitly elsewhere. The Wikipedia should beware articles that attempt to say that there is a topic of standalone encylopaedic value when plainly all its value is held elsewhere - particulaly when the existence of the article implies that there is a topic such as 'physical space' that has such encyclopaedic value. As for the space (physics) page - this page starts off trying cackhandedly to deal with space in a physics sense but doesn't have a clue - see the first comment above by PDN. If those separate pools you mention are stagnating, then they need bringing to life - but not by linkages from inane articles like this. Should just say that I don't seek a fight here, just a robust discussion. -Splash 16:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The trouble I have is that, okay, the information is held elsewhere, but it's in so many different places that it's impossible to find. I mean, Spatial syntax is just gobbledygook to me. Yet if I look up an article on spce, if that info was presented in a clear manner, I might learn something. I'll be honest here, my formal education finished when I was sixteen, and that's over half a life time ago, so I am a layman in every sense, and it just makes sense to me to have a standalone article which draws all the meanings of space together, even if it points outwards for further information. I'd broadly agree that maybe it would be better located at space rather than physical space, but that's another discussion. As for PDN's comments, I'm sorry, but he lost me at spacetime. I don't even understand the gist of it, as words like geodisc and the like make no sense to me, and I can't quite grasp why a straight line isn't an arc of a circle. Yes, I think it's great that wikipedia be a tool for the serious student, but it should also be a tool for those with less ability in areas who could learn more if they weren't treated like they were idiots for not grasping a concept they were taught maybe up to fifty years ago. However, I'm also a little at sea in the physics part of the page, as well, and it would be great if someone with an academic understanding of the topic could write a layman's guide on space that didn't offend their sensibilities and made sense to a layman, because nothing on Space (physics) makes sense to me. Like I say, I'd rather see the space page be something better than a disambiguation page, more like the time page, which seems to offer up nothing new. As for linking to space where Splash is sitting and so on, I doubt those pages would get through a VfD, and no, it probably isn't wise to cover every aspect of space, but surely some effort should be made to present information to readers in a manner better that a disambig when all the articles the disambig links to are related. Oh, and there's a link in that psychology part that'll be orphaned if it's deleted, so best keep an eye on that, and I'm well aware of when I'm in a fight as to a friendly chat, but ta. Steve block 18:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ok, I see what you mean. But my concern is that, with this kind of article on the Wikipedia, what readers will take away is the impression that there is a subject, physical space, which is of sufficient concern to people to justify its own article - standing alone from all the other entries on space-related topics. If people wanted to find out what the Wiki knows about 'space', they've got a search function that'll tell them everything it finds without creating misleading impressions (proviso: as long as this page isn't allowed to turn up!). What should probably happen is that the space page is worked on considerably — but only as a pedogogically expanded disambig page — and this one still deleted. The time article makes my skin crawl marginally less than this article as a result - at least it doesn't refer to a non-existent topic. Incidentally, in trying to find an equivalent article, e.g. physical time, I found Time: physical and eternal, which looks highly suspect to me, which is a pity since it might contain some useful contributions. Maybe. -Splash 20:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It might be best to replace the current article with a stub and eventually it might expand into a decent article. IMHO its a lot easier to add to an article than it is to cleanup an article. Falphin 01:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Whatever actually needs to be said about space is already in space (physics), space (philosophy) and space (mathematics). The purpose of even having a separate article called physical space is obscure. Bambaiah 12:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is mostly nonsense. The parts that aren't nonsense aren't worth keeping. It's unsourced. The inclusionists say it must be kept but haven't demonstrated that it's possible to make an encyclopedic article out of this mess. Even if it is, it would be better to start from scratch. Quale 20:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep or merge This article, as presently written, has real content. Space (mathmetics) is vacuous, and ought to be a category; Space (physics) is a stub, which spends most of its time noting that statements about space in general tend to be disputed. Space (philosophy) is two reasonable paragraphs. The correct response to an article which needs fixing is to do it, to ask for help, or to leave it alone, not VfD. Septentrionalis 01:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment But if space (mathematics) is vacuous, you wouldn't have recommended making it a category. It's not great, I'll admit, but it does the job, and is technically accurate to boot. Space (physics) only mentions disputation in a single word — there genuinely are different ways of doing maths/physics with space. An article is not in need of fixing if everything that would go in it is already handled perfectly well elsewhere - the correct response is to expand those pages up to standard - not to create another poor attempt at them. EDIT: I'm not a deletionist, incidentally, I think that many things that appear wacky will have value in the end, but that is no excuse for allowing the rubbish to pile up.-Splash 01:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, howsabout this. I've mocked up on my user page what the space page could look like if all stubby space disambigs and info from physical space were merged into one. If that went on Space, with the computer and cultural uses moved to a Space (disambiguation) page, we could then delete physical space and have our cake and eat it, no? Steve block 21:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That persuades me — good idea. (Although personally, I'd unwikify amount, or we'll finish up on a VfD for that :-) )-Splash 21:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a really good job. I have some minor comments, but they are on the content of your rewrite and have nothing to do with this vfd. So I'll reserve it for the time when this goes into the right space :-). Bambaiah 05:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • These other space pages should become redirects under this new scheme I think. But on the vfd under discussion, my opinion remains unchanged: delete. Bambaiah 08:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since the material has been merged into space, doesn't the gfdl licence require the page is kept to preserve the history? If so, I vote keep, if not I vote delete. Steve block 15:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That does seem to be what has happened on other similar VfDs as a result of the GFDL, which is a pity, although I suppose there's no too much harm in an unlikely-to-be-searched-for redirect lying around on this basis. -Splash 15:59, Jun 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 no consensus --cesarb 18:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ATI Radeon 9250

Jeesh. A whole page dedicated to an out-of-date graphics card made by ATI, complete with Benchmark scores. Its not even a well known or notable model. Is this a review magazine or an encyclopedia? If this user wishes to contribute, can I kindly suggest he enhance the exisiting Radeon page, as thats the present location for detail on ATI cards. Timharwoodx 20:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[anonymous:06-11-05 5:40 est]I suppose according to the published Wikipedia Deletion policy, specifically the "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" portion, that this is indeed a good candidate for action.

Here are the bones I particularly have with the article.

First, the ATI Radeon, model 9250 is not... I don't know, a unique product. It is a rather vague marketing designation used for Radeon based graphics cards using a certain IC that happen to fit a very broad profile. Now in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's my opinion, that it's a poor entry to have as on it's own, rather it should be an addendum to the entry on the IC that the model 9250 is a subset of.

Second, I have some issues with the benchmarks cited. It's rather dangerous, in my humble opinion, to casually cite benchmarks with the addresses of websites, and I also believe that it is in poor style to just randomly quote benchmarks, rather I think that there should be a site wide policy on graphics card benchmarks.[/anonymous]

  • Delete Not notable enough and, given the rate of progress of graphics cards, irrelevant in a year. DJ Clayworth 02:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pages like this. An encyclopedia is a catalog of facts, among other things. --Unfocused 04:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Card has some notability. JamesBurns 05:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't think of a good reason to keep this. WP is not a general knowledgebase. --Xcali 05:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If this one is kept, then there's going to be an article for every Radeon model. I think a good compromise is to do it the way GeForce articles are done: one article per generation which encompasses several different models, but all essentially of the same generation. In this case one article would include Radeon 8500, 8500LE, 9000 Pro, 9000, 9200, and 9250 since all of them are essentially the same chip design. --Berkut 13:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge If you don't like those benchmarks, you can remove those, but keep the page. IMHO it would be useful to have a separate article for every procuct, not a bad thing -- as long as it is well organized. We are not running out of paper. --Thv 10:13, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Yeah, but if this stays, then what happens next? We get separate pages for EVERY electronics product ever made? Complete with all known technical details, and all recorded benchmarks? Then what? We dispute which are valid benchmarks to include? Surely it should be as it is now, one page per NOTABLE series of products manufactured. Its a pandoras box to vast amounts of mindless content no-one will ever read. Timharwoodx 12:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I can't see what the problem is with an article on all the electronics products ever produced. We're not running out of paper. Your belief that someone won't read them seems to be based on the fact that you think that you, personally, would have no use for the information. Not good evidence. Moreover your invocation of the word "notable" is not right; there is no notability clause in the deletion criteria except for biographical articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'I can't see what the problem is with an article on all the electronics products ever produced.' Have you any idea how much rubbish that would introduce into the Wiki? What, multiple pages dedicated to benchmarks, on every graphics card, sound card, widget, and CPU ever released? Well, while we're at it, why not put every press release ATI ever released into the WIKI as well? I've put several pages up for deletion before that were just ATI and NVIDIA press releases, and they always got delted. WIKI is not a PR vehicle for large multinational compaies. Maybe you think it is. Besides which, the article is complete nonsense, just form a technical point of view. And since a lot of the IT content is my writing, i.e. AMD, NVIDIA, ATI, etc, I know my stuff. Actually the 9250 is a re-spin of the old 8500 core, and if you wanted to write up the 9250, you would list it as a sub category on the 8500 page.

  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

My grounds for deletion is as above, and the WIKI guidelines preclude the holding of info on every electronics product ever made. That would be an indiscriminate list of information. Timharwoodx 21:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A little WP:RPA has been applied in refactoring the above comments, the sense of which I've attempted to retain.

You're right that press releases should be deleted from Wikipedia--they would be source documents and, subject to copyright and licensing, may be candidates for Wikipedia. You're also right that there are questions about the technical specifications of this family of cards--it owed more to marketing than technology. But those are content questions that can be dealt with by appropriate categorization and editorial content in the article.

While it is true that Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", articles on electronic devices need be no such thing, any more than articles on Shakespeare plays, Beethoven symphonies, Cities in Pennsylvania, musicians with platinum disks, or episodes of The Simpsons.

YOu ask "can I kindly suggest [that the creator of this article] enhance the exisiting Radeon page, as thats the present location for detail on ATI cards" Well it was up to you to do that when you encountered this article--just merge and redirect. Instead of which you put it up for deletion, thus raising the question of whether this information is completely worthless. May I suggest that perhaps it is not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I am one of the resident IT experts, I try to follow the guideline of do not bite the newcomers. I've just added "The 9250 was launched in summer 2004, supporting the older PCI bus interface, and 256mb of memory," to the Radeon page. Thats the only worthwhile content I can find on the 9250 page. I hardly think the fact the 9250 has the CATALYST drivers is news. MERGED. Now delete this nonsense. There is a specialist IT WIKI in operation. The main WIKI is not the place to list every electronics product ever made, with full benchmarks and complete data sheets. Timharwoodx 22:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wikinerds.org - Please take your content to wikinerds. Thats the forum for technical data sheets and benchmarks on every electronics product ever made. Timharwoodx 22:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. not wikinerds. The question here is whether the article in question should be deleted from here, not whether it should exist somewhere else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it clearly should be deleted from WIKI. I was just trying to point out plenty of other WIKIs now exist, and if you wanted detailed benchmarks and spec sheets on EVERY ELECTRONICS PRODUCT EVER MANUFACTURED, WIKINERDS is the forum for you. They welcome it. The thing is, its people like me who wrote a lot of the IT content in the WIKI, and now some guys come in late in the day, and start adding poor quality material. Well, I'm not having it. I've not written this much content, to see the IT section of WIKI reduced to nonsense, recycled press releases, and page after page of uninformative data sheets. I mean, not to be boring, but the 9250 is just a re-spin of the 8500 core. If someone wanted to write up the 9250 they'd have started an 8500 page, and stuck the 9250 at the bottom of it. Its not even a logical presentation. The page is technically illiterate, misconceived, poorly presented, and irrelevant. Timharwoodx 22:24, 13 Jun 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 speedy deleted by Duncharris (patent nonsense) --cesarb 18:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Weakest Link Celebrity Hairdressers Special

I'm torn between calling for a speedy as vandalism, and BJAODN - but certainly worth a careful read --Doc (?) 20:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You are BJAODN. Goodbye! --FCYTravis 20:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's just well written nonsense. claviola 20:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - a notable account of one of the seminal works of British television, and a historic moment for the nation itself. 218.133.48.152 20:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODNWAvegetarian 21:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted twice now... Dunc|☺ 21:14, 11 Jun 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. Golbez 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] G'day

This is a dicdef already in wiktionary, so G'bye --Doc (?) 20:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • delete def --TimPope 23:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doc. --Xcali 05:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to somewhere. If it keeps being recreated as a dictdef it needs a permanent entry to go somewhere. SchmuckyTheCat 16:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Admins can protect a deleted page against recreation. — Phil Welch 16:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too short and just a dictionary entry. - Sikon 10:41, 13 Jun 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. Golbez 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unicornband.org

Vanity, non-notable. WAvegetarian 20:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity, not notable. Leithp 23:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete group vanity. Merging with the high school's article (if it exists) would be acceptable. --Xcali 05:37, 12 Jun 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 article was deleted at 15:03, 20 Jun 2005 by Petaholmes (12 june copyvio). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biological significance of databases

This page is an orphan, has been untouched for more than a month, and was copied verbatim from here. Perhaps it can be significantly rewritten, but I cannot tell if that is a good option. --Prog 20:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. I have marked the article as a copyvio. - Mike Rosoft 03:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Databases are biologically significant? --Xcali 05:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if rewritten. JamesBurns 05:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete; duplicates biological database. Recent genomics and proteomics initiatives have seen the number of biological data balloon, databases are needed to store those data. Dunc|☺ 12:00, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Boulle

vanityWAvegetarian 20:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, college legend vanity. RickK 21:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, particularly since his college legend status has declined somewhat. DS1953 22:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Xcali 05:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:39, 12 Jun 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. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ooroo

A super-minor jedi master from a small battle, with 43 hits on google for "Jedi Master Ooroo". That's pretty small for SWcruft. humblefool® 21:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge & redirect. There's a large number of these (see my comment), mostly stubs with no chance of being anything more. If they're to stay, they should be collected in a list of Jedi.
    • Comment. This anon has created a vast number of these (I've been going through removing his signature, and adding "wikify". He's now opened an account as Ood Bnar (talk • contribs) and is doing the same thing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wookieepedia, the SW Wiki. — Phil Welch 00:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Star Wars nuts love this kind of stuff for some reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Ancient Jedi. I created this list specifically for this sort of thing (and also to try and reduce the size of List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters).--Kross 14:45, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as indicated by Kross. --Idont Havaname 18:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Kross. -- BD2412 talk 20:17, 2005 Jun 14 (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. Eugene van der Pijll 20:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brahma kumaris

A page of poorly written advertising for this organization. --Ian Pitchford 21:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advert, and I'm baffled by the comment in the edit history that they are "affiliated to the United Nations". Leithp 23:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Xcali 05:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 05:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This organization is a big religious fringe in India, but the article is clearly advertising. I suggest removing the content and keeping it as a stub for someone with a npov to fill in later. Bambaiah 13:06, Jun 15, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 20:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Katz

Was tagged for speedy, but doesn't meet criteria. I'm guessing non-notable. BTW, I am abstaining from the vote. Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, appeared at Radio City Music Hall with many other major stars, has appeared before 2000 fans in Germany in 2001, been recording engineer on hundreds of songs at the Broadway South Recording Studio,has 50 releases of his on vinyl and CD, has made Billboard pick of the week, currently sings with The Emotions. -- Judsons164
  • Keep, oldies.com says "..long, productive and impressive career of Joel Katz - artist, producer and vocalist extraordinaire. Responsible for dozens of Doo Wop revivalist groups... " [28] Kappa 04:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:40, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Judovin

Article fails to establish notability. RickK 22:38, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep was Chancellor Commander of the Benjamin N. Cardozo Lodge of the Knights of Pythias, the largest lodge in New Jersey.
    • The above by User:Judsons164. RickK 23:13, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. King Nine 22:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Martg76 23:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:41, 12 Jun 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. Eugene van der Pijll 20:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Levi Savage Jr.

Although this gentleman seems to have had an eventful life, it doesn't appear to have been particularly notable. RickK 22:56, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment The article is very comprehensive but as it stands it doesn't establish why he might be notable. It appears to be taken from his diaries [29]. Given that I found a number of references to him when google searching, it might be the case that the diaries are of historical interest. I'm abstaining for the moment. Leithp 23:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep:Intersesting, I find western historial people like Levi Savage Jr. intriguing and appropriate. - AOL wikiepedia user
  • Keep, verifiable, encyclopedic information of historical interest. Kappa 03:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Go West, Young Pepys. Needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity article likely created by Mr. Savage's descendant. I believe it was speedied twice before it got to its current form. I don't see how a guy who moved west in the 19th century is encyclopedic. Thousands of people did that. If this could be presented as a typical case study, maybe I could see it. As it stands, it's just a biography of some average settler. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Xcali 05:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Article does not establish notability - one of thousands of immigrants. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 07:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Early Mormon missionary in Asia, especially Burma, which seems somewhat notable and hardly typical of the "average settler". A JSTOR search finds a few references to the diaries of Levi Savage, but none of the journals included in the search seems to be specialized in Mormon history. JSTOR also finds one reference to the diary of his son, Levi Mathers Savage. Keep, but cleanup and references to secondary sources are needed. Tupsharru 09:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - relevant encyclopedic entry of a key player in the westward move of the early Mormon Church to Utah. Article needs to note this fact to establish the significance of Mr. Savage. Epolk 17:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. It should not have entries on random dead people that may have done a few interesting things but have not left their mark on history. Indrian 08:13, Jun 15, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English words of Indo-European origin

  • Unmaintainable list. Since the vast majority of English words are of Indo-European origin, a complete list would be virtually a List of English words, that is to say, a dictionary. Therefore delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even a list of the Germanic or Romance words (both Indo-European) in English would have to have tens of thousands of entries each. For perspective, I believe every single word used so far in this deletion proposal is Indo-European in origin. — Ливай | ☺ 23:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • True; nevertheless not all words of Germanic origin are of Indo-European origin (ship, for example, is Germanic but not Indo-European). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For the same reasons Angr gave. I suggested on the talk page a while back that this article should be deleted unless the original author could suggest strategies for doing something with it. As he has never responded, or returned to the page, I would pull that toilet chain now. --Doric Loon 23:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - From a linguistics standpoint this is useless. It gives a complete misrepresentation of our language and may lead to confusion among people who are unfamiliar with historical linguistics. --Barfooz (talk) 00:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - however a page English words not of Indo-European origin might be useful, even if it was mainly a list pointing to various "English words of Foo origin" articles. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - however the page should be kept but changed from a list of words to a descrption of the history and liguistics involved sunja 21:57, 12 Jun 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. Eugene van der Pijll 19:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Polzin

I say delete the article. This is the sort of thing that is not informative and is self serving. Unsigned comment by 135.214.66.241

I second that notion, I went to summer camp one time; who cares? Unsigned commment by 135.214.66.240

Listed by 135.214.66.241 but apparently never completed the process. Doesn't seem particularly notable, but I may be wrong. Leithp 23:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The information is verifiable - he is mentioned on several different web sites as the founder of the various improv troops cited in the article. I would say that within the niche of British Columbia improv, he is definitely notable. Whether that extends outside his geographic area is another question that wasn't readily answered in searching on the internet. DS1953 04:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - While the topic may not have broad interest, it is vaild in the context of improv comedy. The entry is encyclopedic. Epolk 16:54, Jun 12, 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 --cesarb 18:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Amiga game music

Starts with "The following Amiga games have especially good music:". Presumably most Amiga games have music, and this is infact a list of games and not the music within them. Not only is it POV, but its more listcruft. Hedley 23:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Foul lists. Delete delete delete. Oh yes, and inherently POV with that title, or thoroughly unmaintainable. smoddy 23:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' Back to the blog with it. --Wetman 23:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Highly POV. Nestea 23:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV. Pointless list of little encyclopedic quality.-- Joolz 23:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I removed the POV. Amiga games of the late 1980s, particularly the Amiga version of Lemmings, used to be streets ahead of the IBM-style PCs of the time. Danny Elfman used to use Amigas. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The list is for Amiga game music, but for the best part this is just a list of a few Amiga games. And no matter how good Lemmings was, thats nothing to do with music. Hedley 00:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I mean the music of the Amiga versions of games was better. PC sound wasn't really standardized at the time whereas Amigas came with a pretty good 8-bit wave player built-in. The music for the Amiga version of Lemmings *made* the game. Other Amiga games that were noted for their music (sometimes the music was far better than the game) were Beast, Elf and Toki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Have you "removed the POV"? All that's happened is you've removed the line where it says "this is the particularly good music", it's still the same selective list as before, of select music in a few select games which the author of the list viewed as good, and although it doesn't say it anymore, it still is just that. Even if you could balance it out, it would still not make it notable. -- Joolz 14:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. There is no consensus on a notability criterion for non-biographical articles. And check the deletion policy. POV is a criterion for cleanup, not deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Then a claim about POV being removed isn't relevent then, is it? ;) Just because there's no consensus on notability of non-persons doesn't mean that they're inelible for VFD, it just means that not everyone is going to agree! -- Joolz 20:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • To clarify, I absolutely have no problem with the idea of listing this article on VfD. So I agree with you there. I'm simply making refutations for your arguments for deletion, to the best of my ability. It won't be the end of the world if this article is deleted, but I don't think it should be. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as NPOVized by Tony Sidaway Kappa 03:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As a rule, I fail to see how such lists are notable. --Xcali 05:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless list of little encyclopedic value. JamesBurns 05:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. It seems interesting.. How is this verifiable, though? These games are noted for their music, by what people, were this information collected from game reviews, or by some other method? --Mysidia 05:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Judging by the POV introduction which was there, the information wasn't collected at all. It's just a list of the authors favourite game music from the Amiga. Very much like List of PC game music, it is arguable unmaintainable, even though the Amiga is long out of production. Hedley 15:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A very large portion of the list's elements actually link to other Wikipedia articles, which is a rarity for lists in Wikipedia. Having a navigational guide that sits above these links is useful. Additionally, any complaints on the selectivity present in the article can be resolved by adding more examples yourself, which is the process for every other Wikipedia article. --Dachannien 16:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As for being a navigational guide: isn't Amiga Games sufficient? --Mysidia 17:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to video game music. -Sean Curtin 07:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic list. Indrian 08:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most of the games are generally considered - by the Amiga games community, not by the Wikipedia community - to have good music. Saying that doesn't necessarily constitute POV. And please allow me to relist Ork (computer game). — JIP | Talk 08:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Can these be verified then? If they cannot, then the list is unverifiable and therefore should be deleted. smoddy 12:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it's an interesting list, I see no reason for it to be deleted. Raquel Sama 01:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title and whole concept is inherently NPOV, and inclusion in this list is, sadly, a matter of opinion. The only way I can see such a page can exist on Wikipedia is to document, with references, the "goodness" of each an every of these titles. (I don't know if published polls among video game fans exist in the video gaming literature or associated magazines, but such a thing would be a good enough source.) Later edit: Ah, the POV is almost gone after the page was renamed. Now it's just a list of Amiga games with music. Pointless, so I stand by my vote. Even later edit: I was rambling. I came to this page via link called List of Amiga games that have especially good music, and mistook it for the title. Silly me. As far as I can see, the proper name for this list is List of Amiga games with music. I boldly assume that this list would coincide with List of Amiga games and therefore should be merged into that; if not then List of Amiga games without music would be a more informative article. Arbor 12:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this kind of lists are very important. Why? Because if somebody is interest in game music, it may be a hard task to find new interesting songs. If you want to find new good amiga (or other format) songs, you do not find a list like this from the Internet (there are some charts for C64 and NES but not for PC or Amiga or some smaller machines). So Wikipedia can offer a list that gives good ideas for anybody interested in this kind of music. Without this list a person is quite lost since there are so many games and it is hard to know which ones might have interesting music. There is a danger of subjectivity in this list, since anybody can add his personal favorites. But with most of titles we can see, that they contain a music of relatively high quality and thus the problem cannot be so serious (the list is much better as it is now than no list at all) --User:Jarkka Saariluoma 15:24, 22 Jun 2005 (GTK+2)
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. Golbez 07:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wtf.com

Unencyclopedic Web forum - WP:NOT a Web directory. FCYTravis 23:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • WTF. Delete. Mike H 00:05, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy I think it has been once already. --Xcali 05:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 05:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Schulte 05:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Appears to be advertising. Epolk 16:50, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • DelETF. It probably has a low rating of google or alexa hits. --SuperDude 17:16, 15 Jun 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. Golbez 07:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 42 Loads

Appears to be a vanity article. The article says that they faded into obscurity when they split up, it doesn't look to me like they were ever notable. Leithp 23:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Google hits are all Wikipedia mirrors or have nothing to do with this bandlet. Appears to have been a high school garage band. --FCYTravis 00:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is a load of something. --Xcali 05:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 05:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yah. The article is pretty lame. The band did not matter. reniform june13/05
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. Golbez 07:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babiker Hassanain

Seems like vanity to me. Short article, person in question only gets 18 hits on google (most relating to someone at a university, and to a pool club). The article seems to say hes the first physicist for Sudan but the lack of Google hits makes me want to delete this. Hedley 23:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a consistent enough article - the chap who googles up is at Balliol & the Oxford theoretical physics centre, late of Pembroke Cambridge, entry 1999, which would mean he'd be ending year two or three of his PhD now. One paper published, which is most certainly theoretical physics (you can tell, as I don't know what half the words mean...). Note that the claim isn't that he's the first physicist from there; it's that he's the first physicist at that college from there.
However... that's not establishing notability. Could well be on his way to greatness - he certainly seems smart enough - but delete. We can always recreate an article later if need be. Shimgray 00:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to emphasise the likelihood of it being vanity (or at least created-by-a-friend), incidentally, it was created by User:163.1.166.216, which resolves to hm216.balliol.ox.ac.uk... hmm. This user seems to be adding a spate of such articles and comments. Time to chase up. Shimgray 00:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The user also created Adam Easton, a definite vanity (and again Balliol-related); I've put this on VfD and will leave the anon. (who I suspect to be Adam Easton or a friend) a note. Shimgray 01:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability is questionable, article one liner. Pavel Vozenilek 00:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Xcali 05:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:46, 12 Jun 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. Golbez 07:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Positivity

Advertising. Not encyclopedic. Google search: [30]. Oh and by the way, Tom Rath definitely didn't coin the term "positivity". I don't believe this needs a redirect to something relating to the physical/electrical concept of "positivity" or the emotional concept of "optimism" so I'm nominating it for deletion. Barfooz (talk) 00:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. — Phil Welch 00:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 01:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 05:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - more of a definition than an encuclopedic entry. Maybe move it to the Wiktionary Epolk 16:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologism. Plus, I thought the Spice Girls invented the word. -Splash 23:07, Jun 14, 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. Deathphoenix 15:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of airports in Canada

  • delete: this page is redundant with Category:Airports of Canada. There are over 1,200 registered airports in Canada, and probably a couple of thousand more unregistered ones, so it makes no sense to try to maintain a list by hand. The category is updated automatically whenever a new airport is added. I've also vfd'd the parent page, List of airports. David 13:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • keep: as the original nominator, I think there's a clear consensus here that people like maintaining a list, so there's no point dragging out this process. I'm going to suggest adding a pointer to Category:Airports of Canada at the top of the article (not as a see-also at the bottom), and also encourage the list to be broken down further into regions. Is it proper wikipedia etiquette for me to remove my vfd, or should I wait until a moderate closes this discussion? David 16:37, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Keep Manually maintained lists are very useful, especially in pointing out where articles are missing. They tell us what articles need to be added. There are all kinds of other lists that have an equivalent category, e.g. lists of communities in each province, lists of highways by province, etc. Are we going to delete them all? Luigizanasi 16:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If we keep, how should we divide it up? There are about 1,200 registered airports in Canada, and maybe twice as many unregistered ones. That might be too long for a single Wikipedia article. David 23:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
They could be split up by province/territory, like highways are. Take a look at List of Canadian highways by province Luigizanasi 04:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's the way the category is divided up. Note that big provinces like Ontario still have hundreds of airports to list. David 16:34, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. List is notable. --YUL89YYZ 08:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, "redundant with category" has never been a valid reason to delete a list; categories and lists serve related but distinct purposes. A list, for one thing, can contain redlinks that point a user to articles that still need to be written; a category can't. Keep. Bearcat 21:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Spinboy 00:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_June_11_d4e4.html"