Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 10

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 to Minor Star Wars organisations. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quarren Isolation League

This topic returns 33 googles. What is this, how is it remotely encyclopedic, and what is it doing on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 00:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's a minor Star Wars thing. Delete Keep after further research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• All I can say is merge to a list of Star Wars organizations. NOTE: I am willing to preserve all Star Wars material in one form or another. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:28, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • This should now be Transwikied to Star Wars Wiki.
    • Can everything Star Wars related be transwikied to the Star Wars Wiki? If not, how and where do you draw the line? GRider\^talk 18:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Kinda late to join in, but... I am helping the effort to copy every article over, but it takes time. The question about where to draw the line will have to be decided (probably on a per article basis). Related discussions are going on here and here. FWIW, I would vote to transwiki all but the major articles. WhiteBoy 10:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep Star Wars material in one form or another. Kappa 01:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 03:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, to the Minor Star Wars organisations page, which is pretty small. Don't delete, it's a fairly major player in the Clone Wars
• Merge and redirect. Is there anything mentioned in any Star Wars spinoff that doesn't have an article? Who is writing this, and shouldn't they be doing whatever most 12 year olds do? -R. fiend 04:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, most fans are most likely in their 20s. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... I suppose it could go into the organizations page. Fishal 05:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• either Keep or merge and redirect to Minor Star Wars organisations. Megan1967 07:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Will someone knowledgeable about Star Wars please be bold and merge this and all related VfD'ed articles for which consensus indicates merging? Radiant! 11:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 18:48, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lucascruft. Wyss 01:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (briefly) and redirect to discourage recreation. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. --Theo (Talk) 15:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Star Wars but I don't like seeing a lot of talk and nothing done, so I'm going to merge this now. If there are objections or if anyone has better info than I do then feel free to edit away! -- Lochaber 15:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge completed - please redirect to Minor_Star_Wars_organizations#Quarren_Isolation_League if it is what is preferred over deletion. -- Lochaber 16:10, 15 Mar 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 pending deletion. ugen64 23:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-Notable also see What Wikipedia is not. The article subject sells his publication. Promo Advert placed on Wikipedia by his friend in July 2003. Vanity Page written for friend by user who created article. Article subject's Artist Statement and Gallery History, is here,

http://digitalconsciousness.com/fns.php3?pageurl=DaleHoustman Gallery exhibition according to article subject, "Galleries: The Green Nun Habituary, The Backdoor Scaramouche Hanging Space, Uncle Retina's LookSee". also during your research you can see biography here, www.poetrylifeandtimes.com/poetnewsDec99.html scroll down the page halfway and read left column. Note: The article subject has 1000 plus google hits. Classicjupiter2 00:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: I don't understand at all what you are getting at. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity and possible copyvio. As a side note, please don't overbold your VfD statements. It makes the text very hard to read. I suggest just bolding your vote, as it makes it easier for admins and other VfD people making a decision on each vote. --Deathphoenix 01:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Deathphoenix, I will take your advice and not overbold. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 02:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, no problem! --Deathphoenix 05:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanitycruft. ComCat 03:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more surrealist vanity spam. Wyss 01:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Poet with no published work listed on Whitaker Book Search. --Theo (Talk) 17:53, 15 Mar 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. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repulsorlift

To quote the opening sentence of this stub, "A repulsorlift is an anti-gravity technology in the fictional Star Wars universe, capable of levitating any object to which it is applied to." Is every single imaginary piece of Star Wars technology inherently noteworthy? Your comments are welcome. --GRider\^talk 00:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep official imaginary Star Wars technology. Kappa 01:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, now this just happens to be my article. I felt this was important, because all the vehicles and ships in the fictional universe have this technology incorporated into them, and it is apparent by all the books released by DK and LucaArts that it is official. Also, someone would like to use this as a example when discussing future technologies, wouldn't they? KEEP. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:54, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with points made by Riffsyphon1024. -- Old Right 02:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, insignificant and non-notable lucascruft. ComCat 03:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to appropriate Star Wars technology aricle. -Sean Curtin
• Keep. Foundation of almost all Star Wars flight technology. It's in all Star Wars vehicles, except those that use wheels or legs. Probably needs cleanup, and mention of the chairs they used in The Truce at Bakura-LtNOWIS 03:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Characters are one thing objects and the like are another. -R. fiend 04:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest you refer to Physics and Star Wars to see the full extent of the '"objects". -- Riffsyphon1024 04:07, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as per Sean Curtin's suggestion. Binadot 04:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This wouldn't be of any note outside Star Wars fandom. Demi 05:30, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• either Keep or merge and redirect to Physics and Star Wars. Megan1967 07:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Will someone knowledgeable about Star Wars please be bold and merge this and all related VfD'ed articles for which consensus indicates merging? Radiant! 11:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Not notable on its own. Martg76 17:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 18:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lucascruft. Wyss 01:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge/redirect. This is a very well-known term within Star Wars material. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - There are already various articles about fictional inventions. There's nothing special about this page, that's an excuse to delete it. -- Judson 15:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or if there is an appropriate Star Wars technology page then merge/redirect there. -- Lochaber 18:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge/redirect to appropriate Star Wars technology aricle. --Theo (Talk) 18:03, 15 Mar 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 Planets of Star Wars#Rhen Var. ugen64 23:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One could argue that a fan of Star Wars would easily find this content interesting and informative. Is that enough to warrant inclusion? Does that same rule apply to other content listed for deletion as well outside of the sci-fi spectrum? Where does the bar lie for fictional planets? Rhen Var returns 335 googles. --GRider\^talk 00:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep, of course that's enough to warrant inclusion and applies to anything which significant numbers of people would find interesting and informative. Kappa 01:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. This is not something you can just throw around GRider. Games have been set here, the animated series went here. Certainly more notable than most the other couple thousand planets created for the Star Wars galaxy. Leave it alone. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. What Riffsyphon1024 said.-LtNOWIS 03:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere, or else delete. This Star Wars crap is out of hand. Might be worse than Pokemon. -R. fiend 04:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can't really see how this would have any note outside Star Wars fandom. The argument that there are other articles equally picayune, in Pokemon or Star Wars, doesn't really apply. Demi 05:26, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Will someone knowledgeable about Star Wars please be bold and merge this and all related VfD'ed articles for which consensus indicates merging? Radiant! 11:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. Not notable on its own. Martg76 17:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 18:55, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to Transwiki to Star Wars Wiki now that it is open. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:07, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 01:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn lucascruft. ComCat 02:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been transwikied to Star Wars Wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:43, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge - Personally I would like to see an article called Minor planets from Star Wars along the lines of Minor Star Wars organizations and the various Minor characters in Star Wars articles, then we could just merge all the relevent small articles like this one into it. I am willing to create that article if someone can leave me a list of the relevent articles on my talk page (User_talk:Lochaber). Then we can just turn all these little articles into redirects -- Lochaber 19:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There already is a Planets of Star Wars article (236 planets strong), however if a planet's description is sizable, it is moved to its own article. I will see if this has to be re-merged. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:39, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Surprising enough, the article itself does not explain anything other than what the segment at the list of planets describes, only put into paragraphs. New vote to Merge with Planets of Star Wars#Rhen Var. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:43, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect ... somewhere, anywhere. Lochaber's idea seems sound to me. Alai 02:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd prefer to see two seperate articles, a list of major planets of Star Wars (those like Tatooine - with their own articles), and Minor planets of Star Wars (with entries on each planet). I'll have a look around the categories for these. And before someone goes mad saying what is major and what is minor - the ones with longer articles are major and the ones with relatively short stubs are minor. Planets can move between lists if they get expanded and articles on minor planets will be redirected. We can also keep Planets of Star Wars as a disambig. Any Comments?, I am going to start work on this in my userspace on Friday 18th March. -- Lochaber 10:05, 16 Mar 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. ugen64 23:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Internet radio station. No evidence of notability; only 637 Google hits. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Google returned 330 results instead for me instead of 637. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, stationcruft. Megan1967 07:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet. Tygar 07:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 18:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Wyss 01:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. --Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki'ed and merged. ugen64 23:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To quote, "Rothana Heavy Engineering is a fictional corporation from the Star Wars saga, created in the spin-off material from Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones." 119 googles. The question begs to be asked; Is Star Wars minutiae more notable than granular details out of the fictional universe of Pokemon or Digimon? Does this type of content really belong on Wikipedia? Where exactly does it belong and why? --GRider\^talk 00:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• merge or keep, of course this kind of content belongs in wikipedia, as with Pokemon, Digimon etc. Where exactly it belongs is not a question for Vfd. Kappa 01:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and stop with the excessive Star Wars material deletion. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Corporations in Star Wars are important. People care much more about Star Wars than they do about Pokémon. Besides, we've kept articles about Star Wars that are far less notable. We've kept Star Wars articles that've gotten only 3 hits. If anything, we should be consistent.-LtNOWIS 02:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 3 google hits? You've got to be kidding. Delete the holy bejeezus out of those too then. -R. fiend 04:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spin off material? Have we sunk so low? -R. fiend 04:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spin off material fictional corporation? We delete real companies, we delete real professors, but we keep fictional corporations from spin off materials? This is not encyclopedic outside of anything called 'Star Wars Encyclopedia'. Average Earthman 10:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Will someone knowledgeable about Star Wars please be bold and merge this and all related VfD'ed articles for which consensus indicates merging? Radiant! 11:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 18:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and please feel free to VfD more lucascruft (I do like the first Star Wars movie, though). Wyss 01:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a Star Wars fan, and I don't care. I used to know all of the major "companies"—this is not one of them, and even if it were, I wouldn't write an article on it. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoever posted that this was spinoff material already makes it look bad. It's simply a subsidary of Kuat Drive Yards, the largest and most popular company in Star Wars. Anyway, I'm marking this for Transwiki to Star Wars Wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, it would be okay to merge a brief mention into an article on Kuat Drive Yards, which I almost used as an example of perhaps the only Star Wars company deserving of an article. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki it. This doesn't belong in wikipedia. DaveTheRed 04:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge: Let's merge this article with Kuat Drive Yards and place a #REDIRECT sticker on the article itself! - John-1107

This Article has been Transwikied to Star Wars Wiki - Rothana Heavy Engineering. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:38, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:47 Z
• Merge and redirect - in fact I am going to merge this now under "Subsidiaries" in the Kuat Drive Yards article myself. This should keep it in context and if this becomes a keep then we can just delete that bit out of Kuat Drive Yards. Copying content to StarWars wiki is irrelevent to Wikipedia as it is outside Wikimedia however feel free to do so -- Lochaber 19:05, 15 Mar 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 transwiki (latter done, former impossible). ugen64 23:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there a BEEFSTEW equivalent for Star Wars related articles? With just 35 googles, is this even of interest to a diehard Lucas fan? --GRider\^talk 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep, of interest to regular Lucas fans and even casual players of the game in question. Kappa 01:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• To make you happy, merge to Clone Wars, however I motion for keep;it can stand on its own. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or failing that, merge to a new list of minor vehicles.-LtNOWIS 03:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with LtNOWIS about a new list of minor vehicles, since everything else in this universe has a minor list. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:01, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Video game cruft. -R. fiend 04:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the article on the video game, if we have one. If not, Delete. Individual vehicles from video games should not get their own articles, regardless of whether or not it's Star Wars. DaveTheRed 05:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the appropriate Star Wars article. Average Earthman 10:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Will someone knowledgeable about Star Wars please be bold and merge this and all related VfD'ed articles for which consensus indicates merging? Radiant! 11:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 18:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lucascruft. Wyss 01:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn lucascruft. ComCat 02:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Changing vote to Transwiki to Wookieepedia (Star Wars Wiki).

This article has been Transwikied to Star Wars Wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:34, Mar 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 merge with various articles, interpreting as "keep". ugen64 23:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This fictional bug garners 56 google hits. Should it too be included in the great Jedi purge? --GRider\^talk 00:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge to the apropriate list of star wars creatures--nixie 01:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep. Kappa 01:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• GRider, do you even know what you're talking about? Let the fans deal with this stuff. I can merge this to Creatures of Star Wars if that makes you happy. However this can be co-merged with Yuuzhan Vong also.
• Delete, do not merge this nn fancruft. ComCat 03:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If we merge it anywhere, it should be to a list/article on Vong technology, because that would be more relevant.-LtNOWIS 04:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to a Star Wars wiki, which it is abundantly clear we need. Delete it from wikipedia. -R. fiend 04:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There must be a Star Wars wiki. Fishal 05:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a Star War Wiki now created at http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page -- Riffsyphon1024 01:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Creatures of Star Wars. If the fans want more detail than this, they can fund their own wiki servers. Average Earthman 10:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Will someone knowledgeable about Star Wars please be bold and merge this and all related VfD'ed articles for which consensus indicates merging? Radiant! 11:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 18:58, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• merge with creatures of star wars. Yuckfoo 01:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lucascruft. Wyss 01:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been transwikied to Wikicities:c:StarWars:Thud Bug. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Weapons of Star Wars? - I have restored the article as it was blanked before the debate was over. I will merge if it is agreed where, but if someone more knowledgable wants to do it feel free -- Lochaber 12:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • comment on a different topic, I noticed that Lightsaber makes up a fair bit of Weapons of Star Wars IMO that might need to be de-merged b/c whatever you think of all the Star Wars articles the Lightsabers are probably one of the most well-known thing about SW. Any comments. I'm going to de-merge this on Friday if there aren't, have commented on the weapons talk page as well -- Lochaber 12:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a list of Yuuzhan Vong technology.--StAkAr Karnak 13:58, 20 Mar 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. ugen64 23:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slang dic def, apparently not in widespread use--none of the first 50 google hits are for this usage. Niteowlneils 02:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete slang dicdef of a trivial construction. Wyss 02:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn dictdef. ComCat 03:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang of dubious value. - NormanEinstein 15:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Ryan! | Talk 19:00, Mar 10, 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. ugen64 23:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising and Spam. Article was created by Anon,209.194.181.26 on July 5,2003 at 16.04.

"Surrealist Movement in the United States" is a website that operates as a bookseller, http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org/pages/black.html Read and scroll down page to see all books for sale, they take checks too.

• • The Surrealist Movement in the United States is not a website, as you well know; it runs a website. It can hardly be a website as it goes back to 1966, long before the World Wide Web. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • kindly disagree, Daniel. Its the Chicago Surrealist Group that goes back to 1966. After 1978, their activities were very sporadic, too many gaps to substantiate credibility. Also, see Shattuck editorial from NY Times 1972 and his response to them.Classicjupiter2 16:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Article subject is also known as, "Black Swann".
  • This is a blatant lie, and is fooling no-one. Black Swan Press is associated with the Surrealist Movement in the United States, but is very clearly not the Surrealist Movement in the United States. You are posting these in bad faith. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not from what I see. The fact is that its a commercial website that sells books. Also, sells one of your books, "The Octopus Frets" by Daniel C.Boyer. Again, Advertising and Spam.Classicjupiter2 16:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's quite interesting what you're doing. First you assert "Article subject is also known as, 'Black Swann' [sic]". Then when I point out that obviously The Surrealist Movement in the United States and Black Swan Press are not the same thing, your support for your original assertion is the completely off-topic statement that "its" [sic] (what the "it" is is unspecified) "a commercial website that sells books".

• Dan, they are the same thing. Even look at the URL, http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org/pages/black.html

It clearly shows that Black Swan and Surrealist Movement are on the same website that sells books, even your book.User:Classicjupiter2 18:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • It clearly shows that there is a webpage on the Surrealist Movement in the United States website for Black Swan Press, and fairly clearly shows that the two are associated. It is just as clear that there are many other pages on the website, and for someone to say that Black Swan Press doesn't have a webpage but is a website, that the Surrealist Movement in the United States is a website is totally bonkers. By the same argument, Coca-Cola is a website, the Vatican is a website, the White House is a website. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Black Swan Press "is" "a commercial website"? Then where do the books come from? The Surrealist Movement in the United States "is" "a commercial website"? This is practically mind-boggling. If what you mean to say is that The Surrealist Movement in the United States runs a website that is largely or entirely commercial in that it sells books, say it. Your "[n]ot from what I see" is either disingenuous or it reflects very dimly on your powers of observation and analysis. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• note, Black Swann Press also has article on Wikipedia as well.Classicjupiter2 16:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• See what Wikipedia is not. This is web promotion and advertising. Also, sells product by known Wikipedia user.Classicjupiter2 03:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I created articles (actually, one) as an Anon, too. If there's advertising and spam , it can be cleaned, our concern here is notability. While I'm far from an expert, a cursory search reveals published (print) works: Surrealist Subversions: Rants, Writings & Images by the Surrealist Movement in the United States (Amazon), The Forecast Is Hot!: Tracts & Other Collective Declarations of the Surrealist Movement in the United States 1966-1976 (Amazon), etc? (And to the author's credit, the last link is actually live! It reads: In work [,] the commodity-systems inner contradiction between use value and exchange value is endlessly repeated -- is this taken/paraphrased from the Grundrisse? It sounds familliar. Sorry, I digress. ) El_C 05:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Advertising and spam is the reason here EL_C. This commercial website sells books, many commercial websites that sell books are notable. The issue is advertising and spam.Classicjupiter2 16:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I just don't see how that bears on notability in this case, even if that is its predominant quality, still, the article can qualify it as such while excluding any actual advertising within the article space. It strikes me as notable, is all I'm saying, though, I remain open to the possibility that I overlooked important things and it ins't, in fact, notable. I will be pleased to review any evidence which refutes this (but if it's too lengthy, at the talk page, please). El_C 11:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but drastically rework. The Surrealist Movement in the United States (possibly with small "m") is definitely worth writing an article about (and several of the writers in the book listed on this article at the moment should be dealt with in that article). The US basically kept surrealism alive during WWII, with the European movement moving wholesale to New York. But the current thrust of this article is completely wrong. Grutness|^hello? 05:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As a member of the Surrealist Movement in the United States, I can assure you that your information on surrealism is completely inaccurate. There's no such thing as the "European movement"; there was surrealism in Japan as early as the late '20s. Moreover, if you'd read the article... --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies. You are right; large numbers of art historians are wrong. Grutness|^hello? 05:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, promo. Megan1967 07:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per all my other Surrealist votes.. either advertisement, or lack of notability, or no article content except two statements and four times as many external links. Tygar 09:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. --Ryan! | Talk 19:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but radically rework. The Surrealist Movement in the United States, the Chicago Surrealist Group and other groups that have been mentioned herein are only an important part of "Surrealism in the United States"; mention also has to be made of exile period and other groups. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Topic is valid. Article needs work.--Gene_poole 00:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, yes this was thrown up stealthily as part of the wider spam attack, but there's an article here, watch out for the external links. Wyss 01:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite with gusto. --InShaneee 03:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rewrite with NPOV and without reference to commercial or vanity interests. Links to external sites could go in External Links subsection at bottom, not in the body of the article. Arevich 18:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. ~leif ☺ _HELO 22:31, Mar 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 keep. ugen64 23:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doom Troopers

Non-notable. No info on the game itself, only that it is not Doom. -- Scott e^iπ 03:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) Keep new version. -- Scott e^iπ 05:27, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but definitely cleanup + expand. Gets 4,330 Google hits, and at least the top ten aren't false.-LtNOWIS 04:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most games for SNES, unless they are extremely obscure. DaveTheRed 05:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, concur with above. Kappa 11:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not enough content to merit an article at this point. Tygar 09:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article admits that it's an extremely obscure game. Radiant! 12:31, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure game + no content = pointless article. - NormanEinstein 15:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 19:21, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Einstein. Also the sentence "It is unclear whether ID software sued the makers of this game" is awful. "Something interesting might have happened regarding this, but I'm not sure if it did" is not the sort of thing you want in an encyclopedia article. No vote at present, but leaning a bit towards keep. -R. fiend 21:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not much of an article here. Wyss 01:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another one from User:SamuraiClinton. Rhobite 03:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Much better, keep. Rhobite 04:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I cleaned up the stub considerably. Now at least it's a viable video game stub. DaveTheRed 04:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable info. ComCat 09:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's okay now. --A D Monroe III 23:25, 15 Mar 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. ugen64 23:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Smith (biochemist)

Non-notable, suspect vanity. "'matthew smith' biochemistry" doesn't seem to return any two results on the same person, though I suspect this is him. -- Scott e^iπ 03:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Decision should also apply to Matthew Smith (Biochemist) (Which I'm going to go make a redirect to the article this vfd applies to as soon as I'm done here.) RJFJR 05:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• There seem to be a number of Matthew Smiths, Mathew Smith associate professor at Wilfrid Laurier Univeristy should be deleted, there is a Matthew R Smith, assistant professor at Massachusetts General Hospital [1] who I would also delete, they are both early career scientists and haven't made any huge discoveries yet. --nixie 05:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I think that Matthew Smith is actually an awesome biochemist, and that the deletion of this article would be a travesty and a crime against humanity and science.
  • Above is by User:149.169.86.167. Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• This article smells of vanity to me...Delete Tygar 09:41, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any such article that cannot even state which organisation the alleged scientist works for should be deleted. Average Earthman 10:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like vanity. - NormanEinstein 16:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 19:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable chemist. Possible vanity. Gamaliel 23:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 01:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 11 Mar 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. ugen64 23:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pluffster

Neologism. -- Scott e^iπ 04:26, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Silly neologism. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Ryan! | Talk 19:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity nelogism, might even be a stealth ad for some sort of creative project like a book or indy flick. Wyss 01:18, 11 Mar 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. ugen64 23:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Zurich High School

Non-notable high school, most of entry seems to be copyvio from the external link. Teslacoil 04:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I mean, its not like its really hurting anyone. I say if it really bugs people that much then leave it for a month or so and see if it grows. If it does, leave it, if it doesn't, delete it. falcon34 10:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless a SUBSTANTIAL rewrite is done. Whoever does that can contact me on my talk page, and I'll change my vote accordingly. I mean, come on: Lake Zurich High School is Lake Zurich's public high school tells me absolutely nothing, like Lake Zurich, ________? Mike H 04:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a pretty run-of-the-mill high school. Article also has some copyvio problems. DaveTheRed 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. Any reason this can't be flagged as a copyvio right away? - Lucky 6.9 06:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Nothing here of note. Gamaliel 07:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing but a statement of location and list of staff. The Lake Zurich article already states that it has a school. (Note - I've delinked the school names in the Lake Zurich, Illinois article, so if this should be improved and survive VfD then the link to the high school needs to be reinstated). Average Earthman 10:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Nice picture. Kappa 11:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Earthman. Radiant! 12:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but the image could be useful in Lake Zurich, Illinois. What's the procedure for unsourced images? Doesn't appear to be online, or at least Google and their official site don't have it. I've exported it to the town's article pending resolution. Meelar (talk) 16:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. I like the picture, it's a nice addition to the article on Lake Zurich, Illinois. I hope licensing issues for the picture can be resolved. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 19:26, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? The article as it is gives no evidence for verifying, and no-one has found any. Do you have any evidence, or are you just voting keep to everything as a matter of principle? Average Earthman 10:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another instance of the non-notable secondary school. If someone wants to create an article about the school district and place relevant school data into a table on that article is one thing. To bog Wikipedia down with another article with a rundown of vital stats of another average high school is silly. Arkyan 20:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Jonathunder 23:23, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination doesn't meet deletion criteria.--Gene_poole 00:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "No potential to become encyclopedic" is listed as a deletion criteria. Gamaliel 01:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In light of your commnt, permit me to repeat myself: the nomination doesn't meet deletion criteria.--Gene_poole 03:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please. Yuckfoo 00:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not useful, not likely to be expanded. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No long list of famous alumni, no big controversies, no other reason why it should be in the news; therefore, non-notable. --Idont Havaname 06:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain unless there's actually content in the article. --Andylkl 19:23, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added a stub label which I believe is merited here, as well as a schools' Template which I'm currently trialling.

This page contains enough data about the school to merit its incusion in Wikipedia as a stub. The stub label is there as an invite to any Wikipedian from the local community or the school who knows more about the school than is on the website to update the page using their personal expertise (there is at least one Wikipedian from this school, User:Mathwizxp, I have asked him to inprove this article). It is not correct to delete articles just because they are currently stubs, this appears to be a summary of all the arguments to delete this page.

I would invite Wikipedians voting on this, and all schools in VfD to look at the many succesful school articles on Wikipedia to see what can be achieved. An example quite close to home for me is the development of Adams' Grammar School--LukeSurl 22:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Lacrimosus 02:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this timewasting generic template crap. I don't have a bias against articles on high schools, but I have a strong view against articles that consiste mostly of unfilled in template with no indication of why anyone should care. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of encyclopedic content. CDC (talk) 23:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --A D Monroe III 23:29, 15 Mar 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. —Korath (Talk) 17:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cult suicide

Delete -- Should be cleaned up and any new info merged into their relevant articles, (e.g. Scientology, Unification Church, Branch Davidians, etc. --Zappaz 03:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- I agree it should definitely be cleaned up, and maybe also renamed "Mass suicide" with special attention given to religious cults. However, mass suicides are a recurring event in human history, so there should be an article on the subject. --StuTheSheep 04:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Moving to Mass suicide is an option, but then most of text will need to go.--Zappaz 04:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- The article needs some work, but it is an important topic that should be in an encyclopedia. --Apyule 05:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep clean up a bit I agree but why would we not have this topic in Wikipedia? Williamb 05:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Key topic D. Wo. 06:45, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Keep -- This kind of article is what separates Wikipedia from other encyclopedias. Arvindn 07:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- This can't really be merged into other articles, although I don't know if PoV should be considered - I know it is hard when we are talking about cult suicides, which most people have a strong opinion about. --Wee Jimmy 08:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- This is a very important topic that reflects upon quality of self awareness. Assisted suicide comes to mind, and it seems an injustice that internal link just redirects to Euthanasia. An anthropologist's examination of psychiatric internships revealed cultish hazing rituals escalate the psychotropic prescribing patterns of interns, placing the suicides that result from psychotropic medications, many of which have mandated black box warning labels, somewhere between assisted suicide and quasi-cultish suicide. --Ombudsman 08:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Although I think the article needs some work and more balance, I think it should still be kept. Cjb88 08:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per StutheSheep. --InShaneee 15:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep don't really see why not Gkhan 18:55, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Susan Davis 18:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This user has 5 edits at time of vote, all on VfD. [2] Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 19:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So what?
      • So users with very small numbers of edits are sometimes counted less when an admin is summing up. Nothing against the user, just Wikipedia convention. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 20:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 19:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and do not move to Mass suicide, as the two topics are not the same. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of curiousity, what would go in a 'mass suicide article then? I've heard that term often, and always in relation to some sort of cult.--InShaneee 03:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's an example of a mass suicide not related to a cult: the 960 members of the Israeli community at Masada, who collectively committed suicide in the first century, rather than be conquered and enslaved by the Romans. --BD2412 18:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Useful article on a real topic. Why on earth delete? Palnu 21:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Eriathwen 22:50, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is a topic that is interesting to many people. It is a useful summary of the phenomenon. --Batmanand 23:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ran across it from the Heavens Gate article.. interesting stuff, found it useful. Gmaxwell 23:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic topic. Article that needs clean up doesn't belong on VfD, invalid listing. --Andylkl 19:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It deals with a taboo topic; hard to find good unbiased discussions on things like this, a shining point of wikipedia --Aika 21:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely clean it up. Rcsheets 08:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it needs edits for sure, but I don't see what is the point of the cleanup suggestion below.
• Keep, It certainly belongs in an article of itself. Druminor 16:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mass suicide, as per StuTheSheep and Zappaz above. The definition of cult is controversial. By omitting that word from the article title we can keep the article NPOV about the exact nature of the masses involved. -Willmcw 00:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up plan

1. Copy info from Destructive_cult#Killed_themselves_or_each_other
2. Delete or radically trim section on Unification Church, since its suicide rate (at least in the US) is not demonstrably higher than that of the general population. (2 or 3 suicides in 25 years - out of 30,000 members = 1 suicide per 250,000 members, per year)

Any problems with the above? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is a section on the Unification Church in the article. I don't even think poor Noah Lottick should be in the article -- while the stresses of being in Scientology may have triggered his suicide, that doesn't make it a "cult suicide". I don't have any problem with the above cleanup plan. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted, Ed & Antaeus. I agree. Thanks. --Zappaz 23:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

America and the Unification Church? I don't see why spotting such points. The cult suicide issue is much broader. But I suppose it is an admission by Zappaz that the article itself should be kept and its deletion proposal was futile. --Pgreenfinch 11:12, 13 Mar 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. ugen64 23:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy in Space with Diamonds

I recommend deleting this band. Only 77 [correction 121] non-repeating google hits. Meets none of the Music notability criteria. I noticed them when someone linked to them as if they were notable on the Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds page. 216.119.136.152 05:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - but only the article, not the band itself ;) Grutness|^hello? 05:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. No allmusic.com entry. 780 google hits, though. Gamaliel 07:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 07:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Do not appear to be sufficiently widely known. Remove reference from Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Average Earthman 10:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 19:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Worse than vanity is vanity in which the subject creates links to the article from every possible article or list that it could conceivably appear on. -R. fiend 21:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I created this and it is not vanity, however it might perhaps fall short of the inclusion guidelines, so proceed as you deem reasonable. -Ld | talk 21:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... albums? live shows? distro? original songs? No evidence. Wyss 01:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 22:41, Mar 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 pending deletion. ugen64 23:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Holt

delete, Vanity Page?--Lloydd 05:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not a notable stub. Tygar 07:33, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Assistant on two minor independent films - keeping this would be the equivalent of listing all PhD students. Average Earthman 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 19:49, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? What in this article is the slightest bit encyclopedic? Gamaliel 21:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only slightly less notable would be an article saying "Daniel Holt bought four things at the supermarket today: Oreos, 2% Milk, cat food, and trash bags." Really, there's nothing notable here. Vanity or equivalent. -R. fiend 21:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably vanity and self-promotion. Not encyclopedic in any case. Gamaliel 21:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Someone might want to take a look at the director this guy worked with, Gavin Heffernan. Seems like vanity too. Made two movies, each shot on video and both only shown at a handful of festivals, as far as I can tell. Seems they haven't had distribution or DVD release. -R. fiend 21:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity ad. Wyss 01:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both as vanity. I wonder what Heffernan's shopping list looks like...? - Lucky 6.9 01:28, 11 Mar 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. ugen64 23:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bhojraz

Vanity. Grand total of 5 (count 'em!) google hits for a combination of Bhojraz and Mauritius. Grutness|^hello? 05:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, family vanity. Megan1967 07:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo
• Delete. --Ryan! | Talk 20:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, genealogy. Wyss 01:13, 11 Mar 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. ugen64 23:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gladiuse

Another vanity, by the looks of it. About 250 Google hits. Grutness|^hello? 06:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, no context worth mentioning. Article amounts to "Gladiuse is a Peruvian LF moderator." plus the obvious note that the handle is "gladius" + "e". —Korath (Talk) 06:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. Made by a friend for no purpose. Gladiuse 14:15, 10 March 2005 (GMT-5) Apologies for the deleting of the other votes. My friend is being an ass, and we share the same IP adress since we use the school network. Delete right away, please.
• Delete. --Ryan! | Talk 20:20, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Wyss 01:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 11 Mar 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. ugen64 23:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Thompson

Completely unnecessary and has no potential to become encyclopedic. Rather than an actual character on the show Family Guy, Stan Thompson is nothing more than a placeholder name used in a single gag - not only is the name completely arbitrary, but the topic of Meg's real father is never brought up again in the entire series. In addition, the article causes further confusion because it is linked to by a couple of articles about a same-named unsuccessful U.S. House Of Representatives candidate in 2004. As an ambiguous article with no potential to become encyclopedic, I see no reason for it to remain here. - Chardish 06:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 07:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Hi again, Megan. :)

Delete article, trivial. If it must be kept, put it in the Family Guy article, I'm sure there's one around here somewhere. Tygar 09:43, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Family Guy. --Ryan! | Talk 20:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's already in Megan Griffin. - Chardish 05:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with "U.S. House of Representatives", or just delete. Yeah, that would probably be better. Kevintoronto 20:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. Wyss 01:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft, and already in the Meg Griffin article. Don't bother with a redirect for such an obscure one-off gag. Binadot 05:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not necessary, all info that this page provides is already included in Meg's page. --Mrmiscellanious 00:41, 21 Mar 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. ugen64 23:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back Bay Chamberpot Terriers

Backlisted on VFD, i suppose it's a notablity question, seems just to be a regional band. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The band itself seems to be a passing mention in the article, which spends more time describing music at Menlo School and a chap called Bill Wolff. The school might possibly warrant an article, Mr Wolff might be influential enough to warrant an article (neither currently do), but the band doesn't appear to warrant more than a passing mention. Since pretty much all the relevent info is currently contained within the Robby Krieger article, I vote we can safely delete. Average Earthman 10:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Ryan! | Talk 20:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Average Earthman. Wyss 01:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. As noted, the school and/or Mr Wolff may deserve articles, but this band doesn't. Tuf-Kat 22:43, Mar 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. ugen64 23:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Chikvaidze

Vanity. RickK 08:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Userfy. Tygar 09:48, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Sounds like an intelligent chap. -Rholton 20:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Ryan! | Talk 20:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and make sure the image gets tagged for deletion, as well. It's... too big. Android79 20:54, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I already did.  :) RickK 00:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity CV. Wyss 01:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 05:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Bletch 04:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Cambridge podcast

Seems to be a advert of some type. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, soft advertisement. Delete Tygar 09:49, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising. --pode 21:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, move to Cambridge Independent Podcast, and cleanup. I can see this being a normal article like any other radio station. --Ryan! | Talk 23:58, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• When anybody in the world can podcast, this is not a noted radio station, but somebody's personal attempt to broadcast to the world. Delete, vanity. RickK 00:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 01:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, advert. Megan1967 05:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, the cambridge podcast is the first podcast in the uk built around a community, for a community - it is not really intended for general use, nor is it promoted heavily outside of the cambridge community. it is now one of the highest rated radio shows in the community, has set up live shows and played over 40 cambridge acts. this is an original expression of a community, by a community, and is therefore worthy of saving. likewise the uk podcast network, which will link other university independent music podcasts together and change how college radio works in the uk.- (talk) 18:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This user has only two edits in this page and in Cambridge independent podcast article. -Hapsiainen 20:09, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • You think that's bad? User:Mcr34 is the guy running it, and probably sneaked himself a redlink in the other article. Chris 21:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cambridge independent podcast. There are some external links in that article to prove the notablitity of the subject. -Hapsiainen 20:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 23:25, 22 Mar 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 waskeep, possible copyvio. ugen64 23:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of spoken and sign languages beginning with the letter Y

Delete this utterly useless list which may be a copyvio of [3] --Angr 09:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• A list of languages may be useful, but I can't see why the ones starting with Y should be in a seperate article. (Delete if it's a copyvio) Mgm|^(talk) 15:33, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I find it highly suspect that there are hundreds of languages starting with the letter Y alone. Anyway, there's no point in a list of just one letter, and there already is a category for this stuff. Delete. Radiant! 15:49, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure. There is also a List of spoken and sign languages beginning with the letter Z page, which is linked from List of languages. Perhaps somebody was trying to do a split? — RJH 18:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If we need a list, it should list the lot, not split them up by first letter. Average Earthman 18:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accurate and certainly not useless, this list, like List of spoken and sign languages beginning with the letter Z, is a natural spinoff of the much poorer article List of languages, which is full of gaps. A single List of languages with 7,000 entries is too large to be useful. Its partial derivation from the Ethnologue falls well within the limits of fair use, as long as it's cited. Strong keep. (But needs cleanup to conform to Wikipedia language naming conventions.) cleaned up. - Mustafaa 18:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep — I would love to see Wikipedia have an article (even a stub) on every language on this planet. To list all languages in a single list is too much: it makes more sense to keep the major languages on list of languages and spin off the lesser spoken ones into these lists. A deletionist approach here is a triumph for systemic bias and limiting the geographical scope of Wikipedia. As for copyvio: the names of natural languages cannot be copyrighted. SIL/Ethnologue can only copyright its presentation and original information on these languages. Gareth Hughes 19:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it amusing that you talk about having a list of just the "major" languages and harangue about "systemic bias" almost within the same breath. Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Keep and make similar sub-lists articles for the rest of the alphabet. Kappa 21:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Un-copyvio and keep. I agree with Mustafaa's argument. --Ryan! | Talk 00:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fork. Wyss 01:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary fork. Megan1967 05:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why not just have a single list of languages, sorted alphabetically? I don't see how we need articles that consist entirely of rearrangements of existing data. Keeping this would set a very bad precedent. Binadot 05:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This precedent is long since set, by such articles as List of songs by name, Lists of authors, and List of books by title, all of which are divided into articles for each letter of the alphabet (eg List of books by title: A.) - Mustafaa 07:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep -- having the list for Z is sufficient reason for keeping. Being consistent and splitting up the long list are both good things. --Idont Havaname 06:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Then at the very least this should be moved to List of languages by name: Y. Average Earthman 10:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A pointless competition with Ethnologue, whence this list is derived. Individual languages that have pages at Wikipedia should always have an external link to Ethnologue. Energies might be better spent checking at Category:Languages to make sure that these are all currently in order. --Wetman 08:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I disagree. Most Ethnologue entries are not of sufficiently high quality to be worth linking to. The main benefit of this page is its redlinks to languages we should have articles on and don't. - Mustafaa 08:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is what categories are for. Ideally, every language article on Wikipedia should be traceable up to Category:Languages by two paths: one through its genetic affiliation (e.g. Navajo language < Category:Apachean languages < Category:Athabaskan languages < Category:Na-Dené languages < Category:Languages) and one through its location (e.g. Navajo language < Category:Languages of the United States < Category:Languages of North America < Category:Languages by country < Category:Languages). We don't additionally need 26 pages of languages that have nothing in common but the first letter of their name. --Angr 10:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment — Angr, it's nice of you to bring up categories. I noticed that you have removed a lot of languages from top level categories, like category:languages, so that a reader has to know the genetic classification of a language to get to it by category. I just thought it'd be nice if all language articles were in that category as well as in more specific ones. It just looks as if you are really keen on doing a lot of unnecessary housework. I could see your last comment being worthwhile if you hadn't performed the decategorisation. All I can see is a drive to make it more difficult to find language articles, and an over reliance on the often flawed system of genetic classification. Gareth Hughes 11:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not quite; I've moved languages out of top-level categories so that a reader has to know either the genetic classification or the country where the language is spoken. I think it's unlikely a reader will want information on a language without knowing at least one of those two facts. I also think having all the language articles listed directly at Category:Languages will leave the door open to one day having a category with two thousand entries in it, which will be a nightmare to navigate. I have left in Category:Languages languages that are the only member of their language family to have an article in Wikipedia. --Angr 21:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you want an alphabetical list of "X language" articles, feel free to populate a Category:Languages by name category. If you want an alphabetical list of "X language" articles that meet the Gareth Hughes criteria for being "major languages", feel free to populate a Category:Languages that Gareth Hughes thinks are major by name category. Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Keep, no good case for delete is given above. --Zero 13:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• List of languages does nothing that cannot be done with a Category:Languages by name category (with the redlinks in a "To do" section on the category page or on Category talk:Languages by name) in conjunction with the other parallel categorizations by family and by country. This list has the addition of a few (8) navigational notes (Just in case you thought that Eastern Yiddish might not be covered by Yiddish language.), but conversely lacks the classifications. I cannot see this list doing anything that a category cannot. Merge the redlinks in List of spoken and sign languages beginning with the letter Z, List of spoken and sign languages beginning with the letter Y, and List of languages to a "to do" list at Category:Languages by name, and categorize the bluelinks. Split into Category:Spoken languages by name and Category:Sign languages by name if so desired. Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Keep Impressive info. --Pgreenfinch 17:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a general information base. An information base is a repository in which information is available for querying in a variety of ways. It would be useful to to have a database containing one record for each human language with a wide variety of different attributes given and a query capability by which one could obtain lists of languages with various properties, sorted in various ways. Perhaps this exists elsewhere. I'd be surprised if linguists have not created it somewhere. However, Wikipedia is not this, and it should not try to make itself into a Human Language database by having an "article" for each language, and a plethora of "list articles" giving the results of every imaginable interesting query on the basic data. If it were to have one or a few articles representing queries on the basic data about languages, it is doubtful that a straight list alphabetized by the conventional name of the language in English would be the most interesting, or even interesting at all. All that said, some thought should be given on how to organize all the information in the Wikipedia about human languages. However, this is not it. In fact, it comes across as kind of stupid. --BM 11:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is such a database, of course. It's called Ethnologue, and it's where the language names in this article were copied from. --Angr 12:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment — As long as categories by country are done, I can now understand what the reorganisation was all about. I think that there is a question here about the validity of lists on Wikipedia when the content of those lists also appears ina category. This isn't limited to languages, but is present throughout the project. For me, the major use of lists is that they can be used for project building, where categories cannot (they can't have red links unless they are added by hand). Ethnologue is the most comprehensive online survey of the world's languages, but is often flawed and offers poor information. We have been using Ethnologue, perfectly legally, as a starting block for our articles on languages (compare, for instance, the Ethnologue article on Lishanid Noshan and Wikipedia's Lishanid Noshan). It would be utterly daft to ignore such a comprehensive resource as Ethnologue, but it would be equally daft to rely on it alone (I haven't spoken to any linguist who is a total fan). This list is not just about navigation for readers: it is a recognitions that we have a long way to go before we are providing a good, comprehensive resource for the world's languages. Isn't that an aspiration of encylopaedia building? I see that Category:Languages that Gareth Hughes thinks are major by name is still a red link: I look forward to seeing that one on VfD! Gareth Hughes 16:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Robinoke 12:12, 15 Mar 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. ugen64 00:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skoodlefish

Non-notable band vanity. "started as a proper band at the start of the year" Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-10 10:50 Z

• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 11:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Manifestly non-notable band. Dbiv 11:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero google hits, non-notable, unverifiable, likely vanity. -- Infrogmation 23:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Ryan! | Talk 00:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, garage vanity. Wyss 01:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. 70.32.17.16 22:45, 13 Mar 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. ugen64 00:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew George

New article by IP, I couldn't decide if the claim (M. G. is a famous hacker) is true. Probably delete. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Most famous? I've never heard of him. Possible vanity, not a noteworthy article. Delete Tygar 23:48, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Smacks of vanity. --Ryan! | Talk 00:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pimple vanity. Wyss 01:04, 11 Mar 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. ugen64 00:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porn on Beta

The article fails to establish notability in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Band appears to have self-produced one album, as well as two ultra-limited releases. Tour page lists 5 live shows since 2002. Complete lack of name recognition / notability with EBM DJs and promoters. Twiin 13:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Quote taken directly from their website = possible copyvio.. Delete. Tygar 23:50, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Porn On Beta and clean up. 676 Google hits. --Ryan! | Talk 00:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, please. Wyss 01:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per music guidelines, as band with no album releases (self-releases don't count). Radiant! 08:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, they're cool. Franklincomman 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note User has 10 edits, most of which have been reverted as POV. Chris 16:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Coolness" is not an inclusion criterion. Chris 16:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Coolness is cool. ((removed personal attack)) Seabiscuits 01:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit. The first was immediately reverted as "blatant POV spinning", the second was user-page vandalism, and both were immediately prior to this. —Korath (Talk) 15:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Seabiscuits & Franklincomman are very probably same user (see contributions) 68.108.243.20 06:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No allmusic.com entry. Article does not establish notability. 90% of it is a quote which probably exceeds fair use. Gamaliel 03:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as written at least; it's just a promo piece lifted from the band's website. Michael Ward 16:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. 70.32.17.16 22:46, 13 Mar 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. ugen64 00:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orgy Crew

I think this is another vanity article. Way too little information to be encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 13:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn gang. DaveTheRed 20:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, vanity. Yes, Delete! Tygar 23:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --Ryan! | Talk 00:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gang vanity (glad to see they're literate, though). Wyss 01:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Neutrality^talk 23:07, Mar 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 delete. ugen64 00:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eldar Harlequins (Warhammer 40,000

Looks like an accident; there is a much larger page at Eldar Harlequins (Warhammer 40,000) (note parentheses). The article should be checked to see whether it has any content that isn't already in the larger and correctly-spelt page, then deleted. Percy Snoodle 13:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This looks like an accident indeed. Be bold and merge it yourself. Don't forget to credit the user if you merge something before deletion. Don't see a reason to put this here on Vfd... - Mgm|^(talk) 15:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Yep. Merge and Redirect however it happens. SoM 16:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Eldar Harlequins (Warhammer 40,000). Obvious accident. --Ryan! | Talk 00:57, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Given the length of the title and nature of mistake a redirect is not really necessary. Megan1967 05:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Megan. Jonathunder 21:42, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Delete it. -Wong

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. ugen64 00:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to cults and new religious movements

We have already too many articles covering this subject in depth: Cult, Apostasy, Christian countercult movement, Anti-cult movement, and many related articles. These points are all covered there. No new info, does not warrant its own article. Delete --Zappaz 15:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Secular opposition in discussed extensively in Anti-cult movement;
  • Religious opposition is discussed in Christian countercult movement;
  • Ex-members opposition is discussed in Apostasy and extensively in Allegations against cults made by ex-members;
  • There is a variety of material in Brainwashing, Mind control, Deprogramming, Exit counseling and other articles adressing these issues as well;
  • Does wikipedia need yet-another-article about anti-cultism?

• • Please read this before voting:
    • Anti-cult_movement#Organizational opposition to cults and
    • Anti-cult_movement#Apostates and Apologists
    • these two section alone already cover what this article is attempting to cover, yet again. --Zappaz 02:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The first one is just a disputed scholar original research verging on rant to try to instill the concept of ACM as organized. It one of the reasons (there is an even more charicatural piece by some picturesque "scholar", massimo) why this ACM virtual article (it even lacks a definition) is ambiguous beyond repairs, and a more inclusive one is needed.
• It is right that the second one has to do with opposition to cult and that it is reductionist to leave it in the ACM article. So maybe you are just showing your interest in my idea of merging the ACM article in this broader one. Thanks. --Pgreenfinch 08:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the definition of Anti-cult movement (ACM) is normally defined (e.g. in Barrett's New Believers) by their

1. history: grew out of concerned parents youth in the 1970s in the USA
2. beliefs: mind control, brainwashing, class of groups that can be distinguised for legitimate groups and called cults
3. methods: not talking with the cult, deprogramming, exit counseling

There are former members who have NOTHING in common with this but still oppose as certain cult because they have observed abuses or deception. E.g. André van der Braak, ex-Andrew Cohen, several ex-premies, several follower of Sathya Sai Baba, like Robert Priddy, Basava Premanand incl. myself. For example Nori Muster ex-Hare Krishna openly protests against the concept of brainwashing in her book Betrayal of the Spirit. It is highly inaccurate and even offensive to lump them all together as if they have anything in common. We took great pains not to stigmatize cults and NRMs and highlight the diversity and hence the same MUST be expected with regards to people who complain about some of them. The ACM article now makes ridiculous charicatural generalizations about people who have nothing in common. Do we call this NPOV? Andries 16:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Diverse POVs are well covered already: see above list.

The definition of ACM is wrong. Barker suggested cult watch groups Andries 16:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this article is more general that the reductionist and ambiguous article about a purported Anti-cult movement, which, btw, until now, did not get a clear definition whatever the attempts. One conciliatory solution might be to merge that other article into this new broader one. --Pgreenfinch 18:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, until and unless someone can merge this info with new religous movement or something like it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• It will be very easy to merge the text into the new religious movement or cult. That is where this belongs. Otherwise it makes an unecessary fork. --Zappaz 01:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I do not mind if it is merged if and only if the generalizations are on the place where they belong. For example, the term atrocity story, coined by Bromley is now listed under apostates and apologists which is incorrect. This concept belongs under organizational oppposition to cults. The main problem with the ACM article is that it allows generalizations by scholars about people who have nothing in common. These scholars never meant to make those generalizations about such a diverse group of people. Andries 08:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It makes no sense to insist that cults and new religious movements not be subjected to unfair generalizations only to turn around and protest that those who oppose cults and new religious movements are already fairly dealt with by existing pigeonholes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

??? --Zappaz 01:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for above reasons. --Ryan! | Talk 00:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, crummy title, fork fodder. Wyss 00:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

??? --Pgreenfinch 07:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - subject already covered in a myriad of articles. I would call this spam. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge appropriate details into appropriate existing articles and turn this into a disambiguation page in case someone would search using this term. - Skysmith 08:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While there is an article on the anti-cult movement, there is opposition to cults and sects which is not associated with that movement. I agree with the effort to reduce the number of cult-related articles, and I hope that the articles on that topic will become comprehensive and concise. -Willmcw 09:34, Mar 18, 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. jni 15:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naughty boys of finchley

does not look like it deserves an entry 84.144.56.182 16:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Joke between friends, and written in a familiar person at that. Mike H 17:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity article. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 17:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity as usual andy 17:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "Hello, you've reached the Naughty Boy of Finchley, but I can't get to the phone right now because I'm busy getting my article deleted." (group vanity) Tygar 23:54, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's hot. Mike H 00:59, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bloke vanity. Wyss 00:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. 477 Google hits in quotes. They even have their own site and all! --Ryan! | Talk 01:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 477 google hits isn't enough to make them even remotely close to notable. DaveTheRed 03:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that of those 477, only 84 of them are unique DaveTheRed 03:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Danny 03:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• And what are they trying to prove with "and mention that you've seen this entry on Wikipedia!!" Delete these kiddies' little fantasy. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yes I'm a Wikipedia newbie, although have recently started using WikiMedia in our business, please forgive me if my entry here isn't 100% as it should be. Granted there are only 12 members of the Naughty Boys of Finchley Association although we do have grand ideas of expanding. If others think it's not worthy of an entry then so be it, we'll rely on our website. There a are number of us who are web users and would have contributed to a growing Wikipedia entry...
• Delete No reason to tie up Wikipdeia with a vanity page.

--Naughtynick 11:39, 14 Mar 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. —Korath (Talk) 17:51, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source code editor

Delete. 99.99% of text editors are "source code editor". Some codes like CSS are not techically "source code". The content in this article can be found in text editor, list of text editors and comparison of text editors. --Minghong 16:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The article says it's a specific kind of text editor, with particular features for editing source code. Martg76 17:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid encyclopedic topic. The fact that the article is not perfect is not the reason to delete. Grue 18:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If there is not enough to make this a separate article, then redirect to text editor, but there's no good reason to delete. -Rholton 20:06, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand; one can include many programs and explanations in this article. Tygar 23:56, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 00:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for above reasons. --Ryan! | Talk 01:02, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already better covered in text editor. Every text editor can be used as a source code editor. Radiant! 08:46, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with text editor, don't delete. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Garners over 28,000 googles. VfD is not cleanup. --GRider\^talk 18:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rich Farmbrough 23:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and this should have been discussed on Talk:Source code editor first. Not all text editors are designed for editing source code (eg. notepad.exe, which even insists on changing all file suffixes to .txt, grrr!), and not all source code editors need be good for editing plain text (they might not include a spellchecker, for instance). Kim Bruning 00:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not entirely true. Notepad will save with the same extention if you ctrl+s or, when creating a new document, changing the file filter to "all filetypes" and type the extention yourself. HTH --BesigedB ^(talk) 18:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah! I'd totally forgotten ^^;; . Gosh it's been ages since I ever tried to code under windows. Thank goodness. :-) Kim Bruning 22:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Only insane people would code in notepad. --BesigedB ^(talk) 09:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:30 Z
• Keep. The article has potential. Source code editors have (or should have) features other editors don't. --A D Monroe III 23:39, 15 Mar 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 Pokemon. ugen64 00:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon and Satanism

This article exhibits significant POV problems. The topic is also already covered in a much more complete and encyclopedic fashion in the main article Pokemon. Katefan0 17:26, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and move the more complete and encylopedic coverage to this page. Kappa 18:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Filled with POV. Should be covered in Pokemon. If it's to be broken out I prefer a more neutral title. However, the correct wording escapes me at the moment. (I'm not native English speaking). Mgm|^(talk) 18:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. POV problems are a not a reason to delete. The Pokemon article covers more controversies, but its intent is different from this article's. Demi 19:11, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Intent is different... I guess, maybe, but it's also inferior to the main article in addressing the subject. Katefan0 19:25, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • If by "inferior" you mean "containing more detail and a reference," then yes. Demi 19:31, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Merge to Pokemon. Look at the Harry Potter article for a good presentation of charges of satanism within an article. If we keep, we should change it to Accusations of Satanism in Pokemon or some such. DaveTheRed 20:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possible merge. I have some previous experience with this article; a while back I changed a little language, put in a anti-Pokémon primary source instead of the rambling personal homepage chat conversation there previously, and changed the title from "Satanism and Pokémon" (because the subject is really Pokémon rather than Satanism). The title could well be changed. This should only be merged if you want all of the detailed information in the Pokémon article. I also suspect there is still some room for expansion, as the points there are only treated very briefly as bullet points. For example, how does this compare to beliefs of other supposed signs of Satanism in popular culture? Actually, Allegations of Satanism in popular culture could be an interesting article in itself.--Pharos 21:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be an interesting article and this would of course be worthy of inclusion therein, but is anyone going to actually take on that sort of task? I suspect not, and therefore I think the debate should center on whether this should be left as a standalone article, or if what's already in Pokemon is good enough (personally, I think the main article handles it much better). Katefan0 21:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • The section in the general Pokémon article certainly is introduced better, but the details in the other article should not be cut out entirely if there is a merger. As to Allegations of Satanism in popular culture, I think I might start this myself.--Pharos 22:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Move: Should probably be under a clearly NPOV title—how about Allegations of Satanism in Pokémon? I'm usually mergist, but I can see it would make sense to put a couple paragraphs in Pokémon with a breakout to this article. The article could use some citations and sources, as well as a bit more reaction from the pro-Pokémon factions, but that's no reason for deletion. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a helpful article. Wyss 00:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• merge to pokemon Yuckfoo 00:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Pokémon. --Ryan! | Talk 01:04, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pokémon. Megan1967 05:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Pokemon until this section starts getting big enough to justify its own article. --Idont Havaname 06:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename and rewrite to remove POV. Miss Pippa 06:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Change name to Allegations of Satanism in Pokémon (and do most of the other sujestions)--JK the unwise 12:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Pokemon - see Idont Havaname's comment --Aranae 05:36, Mar 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. ugen64 00:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Stone

Political self-promotion. From the edit summary I take it he is the one who posted, directly from [4] (else it is a copyvio). - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-promotion, vanity autobiography written in first person. jni 18:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copy of a political ad. hydnjo talk 19:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete. crappy article by someone who is not even a nominated candidate. Kevintoronto 20:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• More vanity. Delete. userfy. Tygar 23:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Please allow us to Delete this vanity rant. Wyss 00:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. A vanity page? Yes, but this isn't some teenager. Stone appears to have actually contributed to society. --Ryan! | Talk 01:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google for "phillip stone" + photographer gets about 70 hits, and "phillip stone" + quadra gets 2. Not notable even if it was cleaned up. DaveTheRed 03:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be a campaign biography. In any case, not notable. Ianking 06:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non notable. Oi vey. --Woohookitty 06:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "his pending nomination as the Green Party candidate for the North Island riding in the May 2005 provincial election" - the peak of his accomplishments is a hopeful nomination to a minor party in a regional election? Vanity. Srcastic 06:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--minor party nominees to small offices are not usually notable. Meelar (talk) 07:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanicruft. ComCat 02:16, 12 Mar 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 to American English. ugen64 00:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northeastern American English

This article groups the Boston accent and New York-New Jersey English together as a single dialect or dialect cluster, and this isn't well motivated at all. The two dialects don't have much in common at all. The low-vowel merger patterns are in some ways the basic taxonomy of American English dialects, and Boston and New York disagree on all of them. (New York has phonemic æ-tensing and father-bother merger but not cot-caught merger; Boston is the exact opposite.) They are both historically non-rhotic and lack most tense-lax neutralization, but that's no more justification for grouping them together as a single dialect family than it is justified to group Boston and Pittsburgh together because they both have cot-caught merger. The New York accent has more in common with that of Philadelphia than with Boston's. Boston and New York accents aren't even geographically contiguous, and they don't share a common historical origin; Western New England intercedes between them and always has, and has completely different features (rhotic, tense-lax neutralizing, etc.).

In short, I recommend to delete this article because there is no such dialect or dialect family as "Northeastern American English". The differences between NY and Boston English are more fundamental than the similarities; and the posited "Northeastern" dialect ignores the existence of Western New England, which is also in the Northeast. The content of this article should be moved back to Boston accent and New York-New Jersey English; the similarities between the two accents should be remarked on, but not treated as if they make the two dialects into a single one. AJD 18:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Older works on American dialectology (up through the 1940s) used to group NYC and Eastern New England into a single dialect group, usually called "Eastern" (as oppposed to Northeastern as in this article). The Eastern dialects were opposed to Southern (from Washington DC southwards) and General American (called "Northern" by John Kenyon), which was everything else. But it is true that ENE and NYC didn't share any innovations, the usual criterion by which it is decided whether two dialects descend from a common ancestor. The only innovation they both have, r-dropping, was certainly imported from England, rather than developing independently, and the South got it too, so even r-dropping isn't unique to NYC/ENE. Failing to undergo mergers before intervocalic [r] isn't an innovation either. And even if it were, some Southern accents fail to undergo those mergers too. So it's true, there's nothing (in phonology at least, I don't know enough about dialectal differences in vocabulary to say) that ENE and NYC have in common to the exclusion of all other dialects.

As far as moving content elsewhere, I should point out I'm the one who moved most of the content into this article (it already existed before I did, but there was very little there). But I didn't move anything out of Boston accent and New York-New Jersey English; I moved things out of American English, because that page is getting really long and I thought it would be a good idea to shift some stuff out of a big page and into a small one. As far as voting, I abstain (for now, at least). If the page fails VFD, I'll move the content back into American English. --Angr 19:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as original research, there is no such dialect, text describes a basket of regional influences in un-scientific terms. Wyss 00:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or turn into a Disambig between the Boston and New York accents. Gazpacho 00:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Smacks of original research. --Ryan! | Talk 01:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 05:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As the person responsible for most of the content in the "Pronunciation" section (I take no responsibility for what's in the "Lexicon" section other than giving it that name and the IPA transcription of "ayuh"), I vehemently deny that it is original research or POV. It's based on published descriptions of American regional accents by the likes of John C. Wells and William Labov. And what could be POV about simply describing two accents, making no value judgments about them? If this page gets deleted, its content is going back to American English, so it's important to establish right now that the content doesn't violate Wikipedia policy. --Angr 10:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If any of this material is to be recycled in other articles, then it must not be deleted because the contribution history needs to be preserved for GFDL compliance, and the archive isn't reflected in mirrors. Redirect to American English in that case. --iMb~Mw 11:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well, it looks like majority opinion is for deleting or merging this article. I'll go move the content of the Pronunciation section back to American English, where it came from in the first place. As for the content of the Lexicon section, I don't care if it gets deleted or merged. --Angr 06:18, 16 Mar 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. Joyous 04:00, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alfa Romeo Owners Club

No information of any note, not even stub-worthy. Looks like it's there just to fill space. - Linguica

• Delete, article doesn't establish notability. Demi 21:40, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC) Move to List of Alfa Romeo Owners Clubs. The article itself has almost nothing here. However, I think the UK Alfa Romeo Owners Club probably should stay, and Google tells me there are more national owners' clubs which could be linked to from this article. I wouldn't mind having some precedent or wisdom on notability criteria for clubs and associations. Demi 21:56, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Delete, this article does not establish notability. If the group can establish notability through a more substantial article, then it should stay; however, this group has not with its one sentence introduction. Tygar 00:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 00:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Alfa Romeo. Not notable enough for its own article. --Ryan! | Talk 01:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 05:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete, as per Megan1967 - Skysmith 08:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Due to a missing possessive apostrophe, the title makes me think what it is exactly that the owners are clubbing. Maybe they are clubbing this article to death? In that case, let me help them by adding another delete vote. --Plek 11:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Gee, this is such a helpful article. The most dedicated Alfisti can find a wealth of information. Delete anyway. - Lucky 6.9 20:53, 11 Mar 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. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Surrealist Group

• Delete Vanity Page Initial author who created article on Dec.17,2003 is affliated with project. The article subject is also known as Surrealist Movement in the United States

note: initial author and creator of article admitted he was member of Surrealist Movement in the United States, also advertising and spam.

• Notes: Above listing is by User:Classicjupiter2. "Chicago Surrealist Group" gets some 1,440 hits on google; 485 without the word "Wikipedia". It seems more notable than a number of other Surrealism related articles recently listed here. -- Infrogmation 23:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now, I have edited out the red links which made it a stealth ad. Wyss 00:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Stealth ad for what? -- RHaworth 11:36, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough Internet coverage for me. (I have done Google tests on some nationally important contemporary European artists, and none of them attained 1,000 hits.) -Hapsiainen 01:04, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes the Google test with 1,440 hits. --Ryan! | Talk 01:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If someone has remembered them from 1976 they are probably notable. -- RHaworth 11:36, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Keep. Arevich
• A Fish Uncle G 22:14, 2005 Mar 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. Joyous 03:59, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BICs

Looks more like a promotion of books than an article to me. - Mailer Diablo 19:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Hoax. No reference to BICs occurs outside of the web site, and the web-site's "about the author" page [5] gives the author's name as "Obi-Wan Yoda" with a biography that comprises whole load of waffle about a Galactic Republic. Delete. Uncle G 21:23, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible hoax, self-promotion, and without context, the article is nearly patent nonsense. Android79 21:29, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity advertisement. Tygar 00:02, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity stealth ad neologism, eek. Wyss 00:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. --Ryan! | Talk 02:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, advert. Megan1967 05:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and replace by a redirect to the well-known ball point pen. Radiant! 08:41, Mar 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. Joyous 03:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brooke Wilberger

A missing person. Not encyclopedic. Xezbeth 19:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, She does get over 5000 google hits. But I'm inclined to say that abductees aren't encyclopedic unless they garner a huge amount of media coverage (ie. Amber Hagerman). I hope they find Brooke though. DaveTheRed 20:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Google hits seem to mostly come from web sites that list abductions, from message boards, etc. There are some news stories, but IMO, not enough to warrant keeping the article. RidG (talk) 21:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a milk carton. -R. fiend 23:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. RickK 00:34, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Note, if this was re-written as an article I might vote to keep it. Wyss 00:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I agree with DaveTheRed. --Ryan! | Talk 02:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, agree with Wyss, needs a major rewrite. No vote as yet. Megan1967 05:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 03:57, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam magazine

Vanity page for a fanzine that isn't even published annymore in some coffeeshop in the U.P. Fishal 20:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The U.P., eh? Delete. -- Scott e^iπ 20:39, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 00:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but turn into a disambig page, seeing as there have been more than one SPAM magazine. Possibly move to Spam (magazine). One Spam magazine may not be notable, but many certainly are. --Ryan! | Talk 03:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 05:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity/ad. Radiant! 08:41, Mar 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. Joyous 03:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yatesism

Hoax. No hits on Google. -- Scott e^iπ 20:37, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. Hoax. This is simply a copy of Communism with Commun replaced with Yates. Android79 21:25, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Silly prank. -- Infrogmation 23:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be a speedy for vandalism (bad-faith hoax). Wyss 00:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. --Ryan! | Talk 03:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 05:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Silly vandalism. Speedy delete. Uncle G 14:27, 2005 Mar 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. Joyous 03:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Septenquinquagintillion

This already exists in Names of large numbers. It is not needed and is a waste of space and memory what with all its 0's. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to mentioned list if this number is any more significant than, say, 10¹⁷³ or other such number. If not then delete. That list can't include 10 to the power of every possible number. -R. fiend 21:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article. Wyss 00:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and edit out the wikilink for this term in the article section Names_of_large_numbers#Extensions_of_the_standard_dictionary_numbers. Courtland 01:56, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• keep' and expand Yuckfoo 02:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete adds nothing its entry on the names of large numbers doesnt. I cant forsee this growing into anything more than a perm stub.  ALKIVAR™ 02:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Anyone who can't count to 58 probably shouldn't be writing articles about large numbers.

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

is, of course, a sexquinquagintillion, not a septenquinquagintillion. Only off by a factor a thousand, no big deal.

• Delete for now for above reasons. --Ryan! | Talk 03:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It makes you wonder why anyone bothered to create this. DaveTheRed 03:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently created to prove a point. See the new Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section, which predates this article by a day and a few hours, and specifically mentions the term. —Korath (Talk) 03:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I dont see it becoming more than it is now. A definition. Tygar 03:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can think of something interesting to say about the number, which I think is incredibly unlikely. - Mustafaa 08:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When Wikipedia has this many articles we can recreate this article. Given the rate of article creation and the efficiency of VfD, this will probably be in a couple of months. --BM 19:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 10¹⁷⁴ = 2^578.015 so if the number of articles in Wikipedia doubled every day, it would take about one year and seven months to reach a septenquinquagintillion articles. If a disk drive can store 200 gigabytes and an average article consumes 2000 bytes then a disk drive can store 100 million articles, so this would require 10¹⁶⁶ = ten quattuorquinquagintillion disk drives, at a cost of approximately 10¹⁶⁸ = 1.0 quinquinquagintillion dollars. The world GNP is approximately 30000 billion U.S. dollars so that is about 3 * 10¹⁵⁴ world GNP's. If the entire world was willing to contribute its entire output to the project it could do so in 3 quinquagintillion years. If we rely on Wikimedia fundraisers it will take longer, so I suggest that Jimbo tell them to get started right away. (Counting on figures) Mumble... universe lifetimes... atomic radii... Archimedes and sand grains... Unless we can broaden the categories for speedy deletion, the VfD for a septenquinquagintillion-article Wikipedia will probably require something better than dialup. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Damn... -- Riffsyphon1024 21:53, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn nerdcruft. ComCat 02:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:06, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This number is simply not significant (sic) - I mean it's no more important mathematically than any other huge number. It's of no interest. Treborbassett 16:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand into a article with the formation of the word. Create articles for similar numbers! TAS 19:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Riiiiiiight....um why? DaveTheRed 00:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There are <snip - ugen64> reasons why. TAS 12:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I challenge you to name 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd settle for even five good reasons to keep. Until then, delete. Jonathunder 21:44, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
• Delete. I suppose a redirect wouldn't hurt, but is someone seriously going to type in "Septenquinquagintillion"? Carbonite | Talk 21:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I just noticed that this number 10¹⁷⁴ has for some time been the number listed as the number of delete votes in the discussion on wether to delete the tally boxes on VfDs. Did that prompt the creation of this article or reflect it? -R. fiend 05:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It reflected it. It was my little joke. See the history; edit comment was "17:06, 9 Mar 2005 Dpbsmith (Updating tally in honor of recently-created article on 'Septenquinquagintillion')" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:14, 14 Mar 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. ugen64 00:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RenderBitch

Ad for a non notable piece of software. Google yields 263 hits on this program with at least the first page seems to be various posts about the program by the author itself. Inter\^Echo 22:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CDC (talk) 23:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, suggest more market research on the name, too. Wyss 00:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I can envision this as an informative article like FNGraph. --Ryan! | Talk 03:15, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. Wikipedia is not Sourceforge. Might be a nice example in How Not To Name Your OSS Project, though. Android79 04:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable software. Radiant! 08:41, Mar 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. Joyous 03:52, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lan Cai Madowki

This looks like a vanity page for someone's RPG character; no incoming links, only outgoing links are external, only a month old, and a quick search only triggers web-boards which suggests he's not a "canonical" character. Don't see any reason to keep it. Shimgray 22:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia isn't free disk space for one's role-playing materials. -Hapsiainen 23:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before we run the risk of being educated any further. Lacrimosus 23:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not establish notability for a personal RPG character. Tygar 00:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until we have been further educated. Wyss 00:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity. --Ryan! | Talk 03:19, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is one Star Wars character I won't mind deleting. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:59, Mar 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. Joyous 03:52, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bemafia

This article describes a Russian Bemani news site. It appears to be a vanity page, and the information on it isn't very encyclopedic. Being an avid Bemani fan myself, I personally have never heard of this site until recently, and I don't think it deserves an article anymore than more popular Bemani-related sites like DDR Freak (recently deleted). The page is also an orphan, and I can't think of an appropriate article to link it from. --Poiuytman 23:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: DDR Freak was not deleted, it was merged. Kappa 23:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 608 hits, apparent fansite vanity. 23:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) Kappa 02:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Tygar 00:04, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 00:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity SoAxVampyre 21:18, 10 Mar 2005 (EST)
• Keep: 309 Google hits. --Ryan! | Talk 03:21, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --SPUI (talk) 04:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:42, 11 Mar 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. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lonely Swedish (The Bum Bum Song)

• Not sure if the socio-cultural significance is wide-ranging enough to merit an entry in this instance. Lacrimosus 23:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep influential songs, such as those imitated by Eminem in his hit single "The Real Slim Shady". Kappa 00:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 00:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, i have seen lees socio-cultural articles in here then this,, IMO. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for above reasons. --Ryan! | Talk 03:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Tom Green Show, since it is about Tom Green and particular show. Tygar 03:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• My bum is on the Keep. Unfortunately notable. Android79 04:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Radiant! 08:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Marginal keep, 19,300 googles. --GRider\^talk 17:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep dumb but notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bumcruft. ComCat 02:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it was an influential song on MTV and hit #1 on TRL. Behun 09:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: vote is user's second edit. Lacrimosus 01:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable song. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:34, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting tidbit about Eminem's Real Slim Shady. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:20 Z
• Weak Keep or Merge with The Tom Green Show. Significant, as it made it to #1 on Total Request Live without radio play and then Green retired it from the countdown, which is, as far as I know, a unique occurence. Cigarette 18:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Tom Green Show... actually it already mentioned on that page so all that needs to be done if for that bit to be slightly expanded. -- Lochaber 10:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is the sum of all bum bum knowledge. —RaD Man (talk) 21:07, 18 Mar 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.