Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 24

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. -- Scott e^iπ 08:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Los Capitanes

Band vanity. Hard to determine how many Google hits they get, but they don't seem notable. RickK 00:57, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Never heard of them. (I'm from Australia, and sort-of like ska). Band vanity. c.f. Area-7 notable Australian ska-rock band. --ZayZayEM 02:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn high-school band. Oh..they graduated..well then...DELETE Fawcett5 03:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:52, 29 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 06:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Kenney

No claim anywhere that this is not just another college kid. — Ливай | ☺ 01:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE. Vanity--ZayZayEM 02:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nothing notable. -Deadcorpse 02:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently has been speedied. The deletion log entry says the following:
  • 21:25, 23 Mar 2005 Adam Bishop deleted Sean Kenney (was a speedy candidate and was then replaced by an article about a warship...so speedying)
  • — Ливай | ☺ 21:42, 24 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) 00:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberalism in Honduras

Delete Unfinished article. Unfinished article. it would be much better to address this issue at Liberal Party of Honduras, as in Honduras liberalism and the party are pretty synonymous terms. Is badly linked into other articles about Honduras. --SqueakBox 01:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• That looks better. In the light of the new version I change my vote to keep and now want to see the article stay, and the delete notice removed. It is correct that Megan and El C chose to support the deletion of the article as it stood. --SqueakBox 23:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.As it stands, entirely redundant. El_C 12:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) —— I am pleased to change my vote to Keep. El_C 00:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article is part of a series of liberalism by country. In some countries liberalism and the liberal party are pretty synonymous. But being a part of a series, a seperate article is justified. Gangulf 18:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not in it's present state it isn't. If you really want this article, Gangulf, make it encyclopedic now. --SqueakBox 18:54, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pleae give me some time. As you can see it is a stub, so it should become larger. I will try to put it higher on my list. Do not demand now. Gangulf 20:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I say now because it is up for delete, with a 3-1 majority in favour. If you don't it is likely to be deleted. It is not a stub in it's present format; just something that promises a lot and gives little. --SqueakBox 20:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Normally the vote takes some days, not one day. Only four people voted, so there is by far no general agreement on deletion. Gangulf 20:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep because "unfinished article" and "badly linked" are not reasons for deletion. Also keep for reaasons given by Gangulf. Kappa 21:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I fulfilled the request of SqueakBox and made the article encyclopaedic. Since the Delete votes were based on the old version, I do not think these votes are still relevant. Gangulf 22:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep since original VfDer has retracted and the article has been improved

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 copyvio. – ABCD 16:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soft addiction

Not sure if this is a valid theory. Judith Wright is obviously not teh same Judith Wright. Seems promotional. Unencyclopedic. If this survives a VFD it needs to be listed as copyvio and a complete rewrite. I'm adding a vote for DELETE unless someone can show validity and notability.--ZayZayEM 01:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• tagged as copyvio from here. If the copyvio is resolved, I would say weak delete, because while she and her book seem somewhat notable, the concept she's putting forth is not. DaveTheRed 04:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio press release Fawcett5 03:44, 29 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 - should be merged - SimonP 21:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Power word

Neologism. There are a ton of sites that use the term "power word" but none that use it in the sense used here ("a form of loaded language"). 216.131.220.133 01:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Rename. -- Change to "Loaded language". It's a useful collection of words and phrases. — Xiong (talk) 22:07, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
• Rename. Unless someone posts some better arguments for this page here, then I will reconsider my vote. --Grouse 01:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to loaded language. Scratch that, we already have loaded (language) and loaded language should refer to the same article. This article needs a new title, but "loaded language" isn't it. This is more specific. — Gwalla | Talk 01:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This may be trivial, but the concept of 'power words' is valid (if minor) in D&D and the Amber Diceless role playing game. If this gets renamed (which sounds good) the original title might disambig or redirect or something. Radiant_* 14:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to loaded language, then either redirect there or disambiguate per Radiant!'s suggestion. -Sean Curtin 02:13, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above w Sean Curtin. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Good content, but duplicated. Chamaeleon 01:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, per Sean Curtin's suggestion. -Willmcw 18:56, Apr 8, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redigenous

Neologism dicdef. One google hit and it's us. Delete neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Not even worthy of Wiktionary. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what they said. -- Infrogmation 17:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete concur neologism Fawcett5 03:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Unless this has happened. Then rewrite with example.

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reed Gustin

"Unknown to many," including the AMG and UBL, and only shows two apparently relevant Google hits. Does not, as far as I can tell, meet any of WikiProject Music's guidelines. Delete as vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity, delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails to meet the music guidelines. DaveTheRed 04:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 05:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. -- Hadal 05:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Not even particularly vain vanity. -- 8^D ^gab 09:25, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Fawcett5 03:47, 29 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. – ABCD 22:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hamster_Hideout

The article suggests an active web site. However the website is several months out of date and appears inappropriate for an entry in an encyclopedia CustardJack 02:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (see above). Jackson 06:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I was looking at the site and it's active everyday. The bulletin boards are always full. Saopaulo1 07:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Feels like vanity. I'm sure the Hamster article could do with an external link to here, but I don't exactly see how the website is notable, even if it scores 8000 googles and 'the bulletin boards are full'. Weak delete. Radiant_* 09:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and straightforward promotion of a web-site anyway. HowardB 08:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement Fawcett5 03:48, 29 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 - redirected - SimonP 21:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] P's and q's

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - TAKASUGI Shinji 04:05, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

• Wikipedia may not be, but Wiktionary is. The question is, do they take idioms such as this? The correct phrase is to mind one's Ps and Qs, IIRC. Transwiki if appropriate; in any case, Merge into List of idioms in the English language. android↔talk 05:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• They take them; see wikt:Wiktionary:Idiom dictionary considerations. Transwiki and merge. —Korath (Talk) 05:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• And see Wiktionary:mind one's p's and q's. No need for transwikification. Redirect. Uncle G 11:42, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Merge as above Fawcett5 03:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect r3m0t ^talk 16:00, Mar 29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John McInerney

Looks like vanity to me. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete (or userfy to the pic uploader, User:Probius). There are people by the same name that are more notable (an Irish town councillor and an Irish professor), but even they are probably below the bar. Niteowlneils 04:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Should have been speedied. RickK 06:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can't be speedied, Rick. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • "In his college career, he is most notable for his talent to avoid work and drink copious amounts of rich golden fermented beverages. He is also known for his oratory skills which are frequently compared to those of Adolf Hitler, but only in ability rather than content. He is also stylized for his unique comic (no toilet seat is safe) and zymurgistic (completely not potable) talents. Along with long time friend and creative partner, Stephen Deutsch, the two have made a name for themselves in the local film community as eccentric, eclectic, and socially critical satirists. Some of their works include "Vanquishing Foes," "Le Film de Quatres," and "What is it?: Redux." He is remarkably strong for his size and currently resides in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Why is he wearing a bathrobe?" is patent nonsense, and should have been treated as such. RickK 06:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • It makes sense, it just written in a humorous way, which isn't ground for speedy deletion. Kappa 12:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity or attack? Who cares? Fawcett5 03:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 29 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 06:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UNITED STATE ELECTRONIC

Not sure what the heck this means, but it looks like gibberish. Author should make an effort to be clearer and use capitalization sparingly, because there's only so many capital letters to go around, and then we have no more. Seriously, tho, delete. --BD2412 04:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete gibberish. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 04:39, Mar 24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malone, Michael

Vanity. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 04:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Funny, but utterly non-notable. Moncrief 05:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or move it to User:Thebigw and let the redirect stay for 24 hours (with note on user's talk page). Whichever method gets this dreck out of the main article space the fastest. -- Hadal 05:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do not redirect even to Michael Malone, who is a notable Southern author. Mike H 06:32, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think that that redirect would be appropriate. RickK 08:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete goodbye Michael - set up a user page instead if you must. Fawcett5 03:52, 29 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 transwikify to Sep 11 project, then delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard J. Guadagno

Migrate to September 11 memorial wiki (where we have no article on him) and delete. Neutrality^talk 04:59, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transfer to wikimemorial and delete. Not separately notable. Average Earthman 09:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, manner of death notwithstanding. Fawcett5 03:53, 29 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 - no consensus - SimonP 21:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ukkiki

Delete. Exceedingly minor video game character: a hat-stealing monkey from Super Mario 64; that article already contains all non-trivial information about said monkey. android↔talk 05:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep fancruft. Wikipedia has plenty of space for "trivial" information. Kappa 06:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap. Everything not already in Super Mario 64 (and there's hardly any) is gamefaqs material. —Korath (Talk) 06:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 07:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as minor character. Radiant_* 09:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic. Martg76 10:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Super Mario 64. Ukkiki already mentioned there, so no merge is necessary. DaveTheRed 19:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, mariocruft. Do not redirect. ComCat 05:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Super Mario 64.--Matteh (talk) 09:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Fawcett5 03:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete Do anything else, but don't delete it. I am the author of this article, and Ukkiki shows up in many Mario Party games as well, not just Super Mario 64. The article could be expanded with a picture, or further description. One should also consider that this article was created at the time Super Mario 64 was the main page article, and in that high traffic time, no one else seemed to think it was inappropriate. Whatever decision is reached here, however, should also be applied to Unagi, which I also wrote. RyanGerbil10 00:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based on RyanGerbil10's expansion of the article and new information. - SimonP 21:29, Apr 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noel Gish

Vanity maybe, either way, non-notable. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Greatest claim to fame seems to be creating a neologism with nine google hits, of which eight are on message boards. As shown daily on VfD, that's not such an accomplishment. —Korath (Talk) 06:59, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Smithfarm
• Delete nn Fawcett5 03:57, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Cannon

Vanity. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. You beat me to it. Is anyone else depressed that people born in 1985 are now attending college? I feel old. android↔talk 05:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not depressed, but then again, see my user page for why :) Mike H 06:33, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, well, I started elementary school in 1985. Some of you others probably were old fogeys even back then. — JIP | Talk 18:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not for vanity. Scott Gall 05:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for deleting prior messages.

• -And like I said before, you apparently have to kill 10+ people to be "notable." There is no such thing as bad publicity apparently.
  • I don't delete people's comments or votes. That line appears to have been a misattribution on someone's part when the comments here were repasted (look at the Votes history page). Megan1967 03:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Lacrimosus 09:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 14:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and an edit war... Looks like the following users are all the same person (probably Jonathan Cannon): User:69.34.6.19, User:69.34.128.177, User:69.40.39.93, User:AyrtonSenna --SFoskett 15:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a noob and I didn't know

In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more apporpriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the User namespace rather than deleted.

Could somebody move the article over to my user page? That's what I meant to do. Sorry again.

Happy to comply. Welcome to Wikipedia, and the beginning of a long, productive career! --SFoskett 20:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete from article space. Please sign your name and timestamp using ~~~~ Fawcett5 03:59, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Impelluso

Vanity. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. He's a university student, and this is his major. Article doesn't even try to establish notability, and Google hits don't suggest there is any. —Korath (Talk) 07:01, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Undergrad vanity. Since we have an average professor test, undergrads have no chance. Average Earthman 09:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is too easy Fawcett5 04:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Boring and vanity. Klonimus 21:22, 29 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. – ABCD 20:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Tetragrammaton in the Bible

This article presents original research attempting to rebut a claim made by the Jewish encyclopedia. Although interesting, it is not appropriate for wikipedia. --Kzollman 04:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure original research, unclear how it could not be. Please note that Iaoue is by the same author, and suffers the same issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic, POV original essay. Megan1967 07:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it stands, original research. The author should consider submitting the piece to a Peer Review publication. El_C 12:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - --Tomtom 16:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-needs cleaning up , but an interesting and informative article.--Numerousfalx 16:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep (Striking out comment due to it being from Iasson/Faethon --Deathphoenix 22:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Comment: Above is an unsigned vote by User:Aeropus II of Macedon [1], which contradicts the current arbitration injunction against him. I believe this offense means he can be blocked for up to a week. --Deathphoenix 18:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Since he's using an account with a public password, he's blocked every time he creates one of these accounts. His votes should be ignored. RickK 21:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Above is a signed comment by User:Deathphoenix which contradicts the current arbitration injunction against him. I believe this offense means User:Deathphoenix can be blocked for up to a week... Are you nuts? :LOL: This injuction is clearly not against me... Aeropus II of Macedon 19:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• You're Faethon/Iasson. You are once again blocked for creating a public account. RickK 21:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. It would have been nice if some of the above keep votes had given reasons why they think this should be kept. DaveTheRed 19:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • explain what? The article explains itself. Read it. Aeropus II of Macedon 19:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Public account. RickK 21:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • לא סיבה מוצדקת, lead reads: This article examines the criticism [...] that has been made by the On Line Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906, and by The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910. No source is used for the criticisms of the two encyclopedias. Thus, to reiterate, as it stands, it's an original criticism. I make no comment about whether it's valid or not, the suggestion in my above vote speaks for itself, at any rate. El_C 20:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, you voted delete. Note that I only asked for explainations for the keep votes. DaveTheRed 02:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Your request notwithstanding, my comment was directed to Aeropus II of Macedon. El_C 02:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately Aeropus was banned to death so he cannot answer to. I am his beloved child, but I dont know what to answer on behalf of him. Aeropus, we will always remember you. sniff... Aeschines Socraticus 05:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Faethon/Iasson yet again, blocked yet again as long as he keeps letting people know his password. RickK 05:51, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Carnildo 21:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal essay, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten Article. "The Tetragrammaton in the Bible" has been rewritten. Seeker02421 14:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I fail to see how the rewritten version addresses the issue of original research. The lead (now) reads: It is the intent of this article to present some of the evidence that is found in the On Line Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906 and in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 that indicates that [...]. Again, presentation of evidence based on whose reserach? El_C 23:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Over and over the Article is quoting either "The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906" or the Article is quoting "The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910" The evidence is in the quoted statements.
  • However I did fail to use quotation marks, I used bulleted sentences:
  • Quote #1
  • Quote #2
  • Quote #3
  • Seeker02421 01:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. Where encyclopedias are being quoted using bulleted sentences, I added quotation marks to the bulleted sentences. Seeker02421 02:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I realize the article addresses published sources, it nonetheless still needs a soruce for the arguments it makes against/for the CE and JE positions. If someone has already made these claims in the scholarship, then they need to be cited. If the article is the first to make these arguments (at least, notably), then it needs to be in the scholarship first, outside of Wikipedia. Sorry. El_C 02:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten Article. The Tetragrammaton in the Bible has been rewritten again. This article has previously been linked to the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton, and it still may provide additional information concerning a specific issue of interest to some, but not all persons who read the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton.Seeker02421 23:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to / merge with Tetragrammaton until somebody comes up with references for criticism. Imho, these cases can just be merged/redirected, by any user, and don't need to grace VfD. dab (ᛏ) 10:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This appears to be pure discussion, and I don't really see how it either identifies a new entity for the article or how it would add to the Tetragrammaton article. -- Glen Finney 19:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd hate to be the WP:VFD/Old person who has to try to merge this thing, if that were to be the consensus. --Deathphoenix 20:14, 29 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. – ABCD 16:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Gentile

Appears to be nothing more than a vanity page. --Xanzzibar 05:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --MarkSweep 07:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all instances with identical or similar content and move to userspace. Too blatant. --Smithfarm
• Delete vanity Fawcett5 04:05, 29 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. – ABCD 16:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Ashley Gentile

Another vanity page, the same as Lauren Gentile, also made by User:68.215.84.79. --Xanzzibar 06:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 06:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --MarkSweep 07:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --BD2412- ^gab 09:10, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Or encourage User:68.215.84.79 to create an account and make this material into a user page, where it would be perfectly appropriate. This is one of the best vanity pages I've ever seen. It's a well-written vanity page. It is a vanity page full of skilful irony and dry humor. It is a vanity page full of a deep understanding of the human condition. It is a vanity page such as Jane Austen might have written, before she became notable. If I were rating vanity pages, I'd give it a 9.5. No! make that a 9.7. This superb vanity page deserves the kindest, gentlest, and most appreciative deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See my vote on the Ella Peterson VfD: delete roughly from behind, but if possible first Userfy this superb 9.7-scoring vanity page. Barno 16:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for both. Zscout370 00:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity pages are not proper candidates for speedy deletion. The criteria for speedy deletion are very restrictive. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason I asked for a speedy, since there was two pages that dealt with the same person, with the same information. After I voted, I found out there was one more. Though the content has not be deleted before, I personally believe it would have been reposted under names like this one. If you still think it is not worthy of a speedy, then I will change my vote to a simple Delete. Zscout370 01:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the author is the same person, then with cases like these they should simply be moved to the editors userpage. Megan1967 03:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Cute picture on the weblink though.Fawcett5 04:08, 29 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. – ABCD 16:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inertiam

Nothing more than a vanity page, possibly related to Lauren Gentile and Lauren Ashley Gentile. --Xanzzibar 06:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This guy doesn't get many hits on his lj account... seems unknown. Jackson 07:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --MarkSweep 07:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (LiveJournal accounts) with extreme prejudice. El_C 12:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bloggercruft. ComCat 05:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, it's more than vanity. it's a discussion concerning a word used as a nom. It has revelent issues inserted that expand not the man, but the subjects he carries on about. Food Thought. I wrote it, so it may be bias on my part, but there are more things to consider than supposed "bloggercraft." Personally I abhor prejudice, specially extreme. Shooting blindly kills to many, does it not? -- 67.161.117.84
  • That's really hilarious. Jackson 22:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm laughing with extreme prejudice! :D El_C 23:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Fawcett5 04:10, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Loren Allen

Extreme vanity. "illustrious predecessors", indeed. RickK 06:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Extreme delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When Rev. Allen becomes a Bishop, we'll talk. El_C 11:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Fawcett5 04:11, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Illiteration

Delete. This is really splitting hairs; illiteration isn't even a word in the english language, according to several dictionaries (including Webster). Jackson 06:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, bastard love-child of a neologism and a misspelling of alliteration. —Korath (Talk) 07:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Poor spelling, a stupid neologism, or both? We'll never know. Delete. DO'Иeil 07:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even I know it's wrong, and my English is atrocious. El_C 11:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly redirect to alliteration to discourage re-creation, and as a plausible misspelling. android↔talk 15:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad spelling or neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wipe bogus content and make it a redirect to alliteration (concur with Android79). Alternatively, the content could be put to use in the user manuals as a fine example of a NN neologism. --Smithfarm
• Delete, non-notable neologism. -- Infrogmation 17:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete concur neologism Fawcett5 04:13, 29 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. – ABCD 22:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pose

Delete vanity page, no evidence such dance moves exist and it would probably not be encyclopedic. A good laugh, however --Kzollman 06:55, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, self-promo. Megan1967 07:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move somewhere where hilarities can ensue! (definitely keep the picture for further reference). El_C 11:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, together with the pic --Angr 13:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and no pics on VfD please for page size reasons. Radiant_* 14:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I forgot it's one giant list, I'm viewing these as seperate pages via User:AllyUnion/VFD List. El_C 21:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. DaveTheRed 19:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn sillyness. If article is deleted, the illustrating image Image:The pose.jpg should be too. -- Infrogmation 17:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this page may be silly, but it's interesting, funny, and causes no harm. It would be a shame to see it go.--seathe
  • Note: above vote by User:128.206.120.169; this is their only edit. -- Infrogmation
• Keep, for the sake of good humor. --governorweston
  • Note: above vote by User:69.29.67.64, whose only edits are to this vote. -- Infrogmation 02:10, 30 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. – ABCD 16:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Climb For Leukemia

Procedural nomination. This article has spent four days on CAT:CSD without any admin finding a case for it or removing the tag as obviously inappropriate. Moving deletion request to VfD. SWAdair | Talk 07:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, promotion. Spam for a good cause, but still spam. Neither the article nor Google gives any indication that the event is any different than tens of thousands of similar fundraisers. —Korath (Talk) 07:19, Mar 24, 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. – ABCD 16:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atalya Mather

Not notable, mostly nonsense. --MarkSweep 07:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Created by a user whose own vanity article I keep deleting. RickK 07:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blathering vanity, tedious, dubious and unverifiable. Average Earthman 09:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete whate Average Eathman said. Dsmdgold 22:46, Apr 2, 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. – ABCD 16:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Estevao da Gama

Non-notable paterncruft. Neutrality^talk 07:45, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• delete - unencyclopedic. Gentgeen 07:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and they didn't even capitalise the Vasco's name correctly. DO'Иeil 07:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, geneology. Megan1967 10:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 24 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) 06:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whacking Day

Non-notable copyvio-filled Simpsoncruft. Neutrality^talk 07:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Request that care be taken to avoid the deletion of Image:Simpsons - Nixon Whacking Day.jpg which I believe adds to the Nixon in Fiction section of Richard Nixon's real article. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Expand. Basically a regular Simpsons episode page. Not substantially different from dozens of similar episode pages. --MarkSweep 08:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks to Mark for doing cleanup. [2] was the page when I nominated it. I now withdraw the VfD and vote to keep. Neutrality^talk 08:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

  Good thing I recognized the episode title. (Perhaps this is cause for concern?) --MarkSweep 08:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. ♫Oh whacking day, oh whacking day♫ I can live with this trivia; a nostalgic reminder to a time when the Simpsons was good. (cue Barry White). El_C 11:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "No, it says here, Larry White." :) (oh, and keep) Radiant_* 14:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. тəzєті 17:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as an episode of The Simpsons. Many other episodes have their own articles, and this is certainly an above-par episode. Binadot 05:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but perhaps retitle to make it clearer that this is an episode article? 23skidoo 17:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've improved the article, and reworded the introduction to focus on the episode, rather than the holiday. Raven42 18:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Tye 23:11, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Keep, unless it's a copyright violation. Ethereal 15:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Worthy pop culture reference. -- Glen Finney 19:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Simpsoncruft. --Carnildo 22:52, 29 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 copyvio. – ABCD 16:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ICE NKNU

Seems like an advert to me or at least commercial. Non-encyclopedic. Delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyvio-- Duk 05:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like an ad. Smells like an ad. Quacks like an ad. It's an ad. Also, of the 762 unique Google hits this term turns up, a) only a handful are in a language other than Chinese, b) a lot of them appear to derive solely from posts noting email addresses like chchen@icemail.nknu.edu.tw and lee@icemail.nknu.edu.tw, and c) none of them suggests notability. -- 8^D ^gab 12:24, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Comment: I have tagged this article for copyright problems. --Allen3 15:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, copyright violation. Megan1967 10:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: there seems to be a whole bunch of articles connected with this through authorship or linked from National Kaohsiung Normal University, some of them with too generic names, like College of Education, and also including David Yang, an apparent autobiographical article. / Tupsharru 06:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete institution vanity. Recommend someone follow up on Tupsharru's tip. Might be more cruft out there from the same source. --Smithfarm
• Delete. I'm also thinking vanity. hydnjo talk 23:29, 26 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. – ABCD 20:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duncan Joseph Mcinnes

Non-notable and malformed page entry. Delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If it's verifiable and undergoes some clean-up (what is with all these pages with people's names in lower case lately?), the relative non-notability doesn't bother me too much. But then again I'm an inclusionist. Wikipedia is not paper and all that.

Moncrief 09:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I've missed any places I should have changed it, but I moved the article from its lower case "Duncan joseph mcinnes" to this name. I couldn't bear to see it in its weird lower-case state. Moncrief 09:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I'm inclined to say. Alabama Shakespeare Festival is notable, anyway. Charles Matthews 09:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, I think that it the Alabama Shakespeare Festival is notable; I'm not sure about McInnes. He is certainly not the director (there is no such person), and he is not among the six people with clear positions on the board: this page shows that he is one of forty-odd volunteers. Incidentally, of the two links now at the foot of the article, one is to the top page of the ASF and the other is (perhaps only temporarily) dead. -- Hoary 10:24, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Being one of forty volunteers at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival does not make him notable. Neither does being the Transportation Director of the Alabama Department of Transportation. Just under the bar of notability. DaveTheRed 18:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Dave, and delete. Radiant_* 11:53, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are plenty of former corporate executives that do community service and work in management positions in state government institutions. Are they all notable? No. --Smithfarm
• Keep, I've cleaned the article up and changed the links. I don't think he's particularly notable, but I also don't think that "notability" is a particularly relevant criterion for a limitless encyclopedia project. --Dystopos 04:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable bureaucrat. Wikipedia is not limitless, as evidenced by VfD. RickK 08:17, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, The project, if not the current hardare setup, is in fact, limitless. I cite the Numbers to which Wikipedia aspires section of Wikipedia:Size comparisons. VfD is an important effort, but should not concern itself with "notability" alone. How to judge McInnes' importance relative to Os Ultimos Herois, Menudo's first Portuguese album, for example? --Dystopos 16:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 03:40, 28 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. – ABCD 02:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Seldon Plan (band)

Band vanity. Let them release their first full-length CD (or do something similarly noteworthy), and then we can take another look at them. -- Hoary 09:56, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 10:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn bandcruft. ComCat 01:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. --Smithfarm
• UndeleteThis band has had two indie label releases and one article write up in the College Music Journal which qualifies them under our current criteria. spectrilla 05:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this was actually added not by spectrilla — who doesn't exist, or anyway has made no contribution — but (at 22:40, 2005 Mar 27) by 141.157.86.196, an IP that on the same day blanked Template:POV check (here's the diff). 141.157.86.196 stuck this "undelete" vote at the very top; I've moved it to the correct place in chronological order. -- Hoary 01:52, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Undelete--Did some research and could not find the College Music article but did find a review in the All Music Guide and some info on amazon.com. Sufficient doubt for removal due to band vanity, but POV issues need to be addresss. Maybe condense the article to the relevant points. Goferwiki
  • Comment: Amazon sells an EP and offers mp3 files from it: no full-length CD. The agonizingly slow allmusic.com has no article about the Seldon Plan; it does have absolute minimal recognition of the band's mini-CD. Goferwiki, I'm puzzled by the way that your vote above is only your second contribution to WP, after a user page consisting of the single word "Goferwiki". -- Hoary 10:52, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

• • Comment: Agreed on the amazon point and on the all music guide point, however on that point-there is a one-paragraph review of the EP-perhaps that should be the basis of a stub instead of the full-length article? Would point out two issues 1) I am a sci-fi buff and just joined Wiki and happpenstance found this discussion. I used it as an excuse to read the rules regarding deletions-one one of which states (paraphrasing) that "when in doubt-do not delete." I think at least in this (and other discussions I have seen for other pages) there is an overzealousness to get rid of information. 2) I wonder about your objectivity in this situation about this article based on the verbiage you use in your dismissal of the contents (see earlier comments about other users) and your ad hominem attack on my membership. New users have as much right to begin to join discussions as veterans. I think for this article, the article should be re-written to under a paragraph and not deleted. (See the entry for "The Seldon Plan" refrencing th Asimov concept-how I got to this page.) The number of entries I have made should play no bearing in the relevance of my viewpoint as it should not weigh in, in the relevance of yours. Finally, I tried to cite some research on this article in offering my opinion about it-none of the above users, including yourself did that in asking for deletion. --Goferwiki 12:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia, Goferwiki! A couple points, which I hope you will find constructive and helpful. (1) The purpose of this VfD page is to arrive at a consensus at what is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Please look here - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - for a discussion of what doesn't belong. The general consensus in the past has always been that vanity pages are no-go. (2) Although arriving at such a consensus is not always easy, Wikipedians try not to get involved in or incite flamewars. That means we don't make accusations or conduct personal attacks against other users. (3) The only justification for having a stub in the encyclopedia is that the subject of the article belongs in the encyclopedia but nobody has written a more in-depth article yet. (4) The Wikipedia:Community Portal page has pointers on how people can put their creative energies to use for the good of our cooperative encyclopedia project. So feel free to roll up your sleeves and jump right in! Be bold in editing and improving articles. (5) The more contributions a person makes to encyclopedia articles, the more weight their opinions carry here. --Smithfarm 13:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: Smithfarm, thank you for the points. I just read Please do not bite the newcomers and I want to point out that I was trying to be helpful and was a taken aback by the tone of the response. I understand clearly the vanity issue, my point is that this article should just be scaled way back as I think we might have problems proving 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that it is self-serving. I wanted to err on the side of scaling back and not-deleting versus just deleting.

• Very Weak Keep I would prefer to err on the side of inclusion. I have done some editing to make the tone more neutral. If someone is familiar with the music genres this band is listed as a fusion of, those might make some good categories. Having said that, if the article goes into that good night, I won't cry over it. They can always be resubmitted should more notoriety attach to the group. -- Glen Finney 20:15, 29 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. – ABCD 16:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block-compress error. – ABCD 16:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OrganicPoetry

Non-notable and also appears to be original research. Google returns 189 hits for 'OrganicPoetry -wikipedia -encyclopedia'. Should be deleted and/or merged with Glass Bead Game. (Note that I realise as an anon my vote is not counted, but I believe I can still nominate). --194.73.130.132 11:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. OrganicPoetry + gupta gets 15 hits. Original research, non-notable. DaveTheRed 18:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, original essay. Megan1967 01:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This was mentioned on several India-specific blogs some weeks back, but that's not notability enough. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 05:13, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
• Delete original research/essay. --Smithfarm

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) 06:49, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Lunsford

Not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Look I'm sorry she was killed, but is Wikipedia a memorial or an encyclopedia? Other than dying what has this girl done to make herself encyclopedic? Many children are killed by predators, do they all deserve articles?  ALKIVAR™ 12:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with John Couey. --SPUI (talk) 12:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - She was in the news, and everything there is verifiable if it is fact or not. There are no space considerations. Burgundavia 12:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been in the news. A biography about me would be factual too, that doesnt make me necesarily worty of inclusion.  ALKIVAR™ 12:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? It is factual, and can be verified. Burgundavia 12:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with John Couey. DO'Иeil 12:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honour them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Also, is John Couey that significant? Being murderer, burglar etc. isn't that unique.-Hapsiainen 12:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not a memorial service. Radiant_* 14:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a memorial service.
  • This vote was cast by IP User:66.149.81.66, which has only one edit in its history. -Hapsiainen 18:32, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • And as such is invalid. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Gotta vote keep. — she's just as notable as Elizabeth Smart, Samantha Runnion, and Carlie Brucia. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If you'd like to keep those article, your vote is reasonable. If you are not certain, you should find other reasons than status quo. Status quo isn't a Wikipedia policy. -Hapsiainen 18:32, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • They haven't yet made a television movie or a foundation for her memorial. These were reasons to keep Samantha Runnion and Elizabeth Smart articles. -Hapsiainen 18:44, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not to mention Elizabeth Smart is still alive and may end up doing something notable down the road. Jessica Lunsford is dead and will not be doing anything else. If anything she has more in common with say Polly Klaas, but Polly has the benefit of having LAW made because of her case, hence her notability. This girl other than being a news headline for a few days/weeks/months will likely dissapear shortly after the trial is over.  ALKIVAR™ 20:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If we have an article about her rapist and murderer, we should also have an article about her... Geneviève 22:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  For the record I was waiting for the results to this before listing him. I dont think he belongs either.  ALKIVAR™ 22:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. WP is not a memorial service, but her case was national news, and space is cheap. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Why did this VfD disappear and then reappear? Anyway, strong keep. Jessica Lunsford even made the news here in Finland. — JIP | Talk 06:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Mike H 06:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I was the entry starter, and my intent was not for the article to be a memorial, but an entry encapsulating the facts of the case. It seems quite likely to me that some future legislation in Florida may take place based on this case, and a law very well may be written in her name. Even though she has died, I wouldn't be so fast to discount future ramifications of this case.Cwire4 07:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. disk not full — Davenbelle 08:41, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, but merge Couey with Jessica. Saopaulo1 08:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Notable. Verifiable. -JCarriker 10:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 10:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Wikipedia is the sum of all abductee knowledge. —RaD Man (talk) 18:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Based from this article, Jessica's murder underscores a problem with tracking sex offenders, and I expect that one or two new laws will come out from this sad case. Zscout370 19:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or possibly merge. -Sean Curtin 02:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This was an internationally known story. Definitely notable and verifiable. mpiff 23:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It made the news even internationally; it's verifiable; it's likely it will trigger changes in the US legislation regarding known sex offenders; and, as someone said, the disk is not full yet, we do not need to save a few bytes. But by all means merge with the article on the perpetrator. Redux 18:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Noteworthy abduction and murder; 1000 mourners at her memorial service. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, emphatically. Everyking 04:11, 28 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Filipe Oliviera

Vandalism, in Portuguese. Use Babelfish to translate if you must. There's no article to revert to, so delete. --Goblin ^›talk 12:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy-deleted, under "Very short articles with little or no context". BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:16, 24 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) 06:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halflife (comics)

Non-notable, painfully short, establishes virtually nothing about the character. Delete - SoM 12:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep fancruft. Kappa 12:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Title is misleading; it seems to indicate a comic about the popular computer game, but instead it's a minor character in the Marvel universe. Said character should be listed on a minor characters listing somewhere, and I guess this title could redirect there. Radiant_* 14:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Keep and rename Megan1967 02:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable character, article has virtually no content. -Sean Curtin 02:19, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Radiant and Megan1967. OK, either we agree on a policy to delete all articles on minor Marvel Comics characters or we just keep the thing. Seems to me like we delete alot of stuff that is more notable than this, though. It all boils down to: notable for whom? --Smithfarm

Comment ummm - what to merge WITH? Pick a page... (Responding to new comment above) I'm not opposed to having articles on minor characters. I'm opposed to having pages which barely qualify as substubs, never mind stubs on minor characters. When I VfDed this, the page read "Halflife is a Marvel Comics supervillain." That was IT. If it gets up to a decent paragraph, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw my objection to it staying, but I don't see any great prospect of this, ergo the VfD. - SoM 16:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep. There are a bunch of other articles that are worse than this one that are not even being considered candidates for deletion! All you have to do is find out information about this character and put it into the article- don't delete the article! - Graham P 8:10, 29 March 2005 (UTC)

I hereby change my vote to No vote. --Smithfarm

• • Well the normal thing is to click on "what links here" to find a suitable candidate, which would be perhaps List of Marvel Comics characters or maybe Nooks and corners of Wikipedia that should be frequented Kappa 17:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lack of content is not a reason for deletion. Xezbeth 17:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• As a major fan of Marvel Comics who has read most of the issues in which this character appeared, I still say delete.DS 23:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think there is enough there and in the related pages to keep the material. Hopefully, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics initiative will result in some better organization within this category, and thence perhaps this page and others will be merged or expanded as appropriate. -- Glen Finney 19:59, 29 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 22:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) Was deleted once in March

[edit] Sebajdin Bytyqi

Nonsense.Delete page and history 80.80.160.30 12:24, 24 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. – ABCD 16:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] turgid

There's no scope for metamorphosis of this dictionary article about an adjective (that Wiktionary had already had for 4 months before the creation of this article) into an encyclopaedia article about a concept/person/place/thing, and no obvious place for a redirection (oedema isn't quite apt, considering that many of the ordinary dictionary uses of "turgid" within Wikipedia articles are in a metaphorical sense — describing prose or football playing as "turgid", for example). Uncle G 12:58, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just a dictionary article. The only "turgid" thing I can think of is Turgidson in Strangelove. Jackson 17:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. --Smithfarm
• Delete cf above. -- Infrogmation 17:55, 26 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. – ABCD 22:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism

The article has not been edited since january, and all the same issues remain. It's based entirely on original research, with such claims as the idea that anarchism isn't a political philosophy. From the very core, it is an article written to support a tiny ideological group's attempts to redefine a historical movement that rejects it, in a way that favours their inclusion.

As with before, this debate is covered on several pages already, and there is no need for a POV article that is so inactive as to have zero positive changes since our last VfD listing in December of 2004.

• Delete There's no value in having this, seeing as how it's slanted.--Hoovernj 02:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Che y Marijuana 14:02, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete adding "X critique of Y" instead of enhancing the "X" or "Y" article leads to fragmentation and articles nobody cares about. --Pjacobi 14:26, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Delete as per the above. The article may bring up some interesting points but the information would be better suited in the related pages and not as a standing page of its own. Arkyan 18:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kev 00:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 02:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV orig research. DaveTheRed 06:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't Wikinfo. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - max rspct 21:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  
• Delete Dsmdgold 00:57, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and do not redirect to Anarcho-capitalism. It's apparently just an attempt to spread the word. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Create article and Diana_al-hadid

Non notable. Inter\^Echo 16:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Note The two articles, Diana_al-hadid and Create article currently have identical content. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedying the "Create article" version as it's a content fork. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although she gets 1540 Google hits, only 19 are displayed; the rest are suppressed as "very similar." It appears as if the other 1500-odd are all repetitive content from a Richmond tourist-bureau site that repeatedly featured one art event in its "upcoming attractions." No hits in Google Groups. No hits in Google News. At best, locally notable in Richmond, Virginia. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible promo. Megan1967 02:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clay-cruft. dbenbenn | talk 00:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article does not establish notability, but this artist is mentioned in at least one journal, making her notable IMO. --Smithfarm
• Delete, non-notable. The very idea that every person who was ever mentioned in any newspaper should have an article is laughable. RickK 08:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification. What you say is true, but it's not what I said. Art journals are not newspapers. In the art world, being mentioned in a trade journal is a sign that one is on the up-and-up. Sorry I didn't clarify this. That said, I'm not familiar with the journal she got mentioned in; maybe the journal itself is not notable. --Smithfarm

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. – ABCD 16:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block-compress error. – ABCD 16:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Man

Vanity page about a series of drawings of an "internet pop culture" character by a Rochester student. Delete. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Non-notable, perhaps vanity, perhaps spam. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No content aside from an external link to a defunct site. --Smithfarm 13:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Several google searches, including the words "Angry Man" and Rochester, return nothing. Plus, the website linked doesn't even exist. Not a very durable culture, it seems Sarg 16:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Dsmdgold 02:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 22:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ORDER OF DAVES

Another excellent example of why we need a faster method of deleting stuff that is not quite patent nonsense. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I know it's way too late, but next time, use Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion for such a thing. --Kitch 13:15, 29 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. – ABCD 16:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boch

Article about a series of car dealerships in New England. I see no evidence of notability. Possible advertising. Delete. --InShaneee 19:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep IT IS VERY IMPORTANT! It is an enormous dealership center, and the largest dealer in the world of Hondas, and the second largest dealer of Toyotas in the world. Ernie Boch is a Boston area legend. Now, there are articles that are extremly pointless, such as :Buzz Lightyear's Astro Blasters, and Fortree City, (a made-up fake city) - so take those off. This is good. User:NewGuy4
  • Note that User:NewGuy4 created the article.
    • Note that that doesn't matter.

• Delete. Does not seem relevant. I'm not even sure an animal can be a spokesperson. In all seriousness, seems to be advertisement. -- Jwinters | Talk 19:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • - have you ever seen the ads? Then you'd understand. It is stange to have an animal but it seems to help him sell cars. User:NewGuy4

• • See also image: Picture of my idol, Ernie Boch Jr., the coolest car dealer owner in Massachusetts (excluding Bryan Jones of Framingham Ford). YOU ROCK!! (picture taken from Boch website) -- Jwinters | Talk 19:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I also added a copyvio tag to the image, as it is taken from the Boch website and User:NewGuy4 (who uploaded the image) even said so. -- Jwinters | Talk 19:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete, Blatant advertisement, vandal-supported. Binadot 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The late Ernie Boch is Norwood-notable and even has some small degree of regional notability. Every town has one big car dealer whose television ads are just annoying/catchy enough to become a byword. In Madison, Wisconsin, that was John Zimbrick; in Boston, it's Ernie "Come on down!" Boch. He's responsible for the concept of having area car dealers go into together to publicize the Norwood "automile." (He was also locally notable for never giving a nickel to charity).Sure, he's worth a non-promotional NPOV line or two in the Norwood, Massachusetts article. No way is he notable enough for a whole article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Of only local notability. RickK 22:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Restricted regional note, and a quick google shows at least three US Toyota dealers claiming to be the largest in the world, so I suspect at the least this is a title that changes hands regularly. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, so local dealerships are not in the remit. Average Earthman 23:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. DaveTheRed 02:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ernie Boch has actually given quite a bit to charity, including a performance center on Cape Cod and a wing at Norwood Hospital. No way is he only known in the Norwood area, but his ads litter the Boston (and likely Providence) TV stations. Boston is quite bigger than Madison, Wisconsin. Boch is frequently close to the top Toyota dealer in the country, and his 4-year old Honda franchise was the top-selling Honda dealer in the world last month. I don't think there are many people in the Boston area who don't know who Ernie Boch is. The article may look like an advertisement, but it's not. Don't be confused, the Boch empire is quite far from Joe Schmo Isuzu. User:209.6.133.76.
  • The above was User:209.6.133.76. RickK 05:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retracting my above comment re charity. Apologies. Still think any material on Boch should go in Norwood, Massachusetts, maybe in a section on "Norwood notables" or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fg2 06:33, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN, vanity and/or possible ad. Radiant_* 11:53, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think large business are sufficiently noteable to have their own Wikipedia pages, much more so than e.g. individual masts (e.g. WAVE-Mast), HVDC installations (e.g. HVDC Kingsnorth) and individual Pokémons, some of which have survived VfDs. And the Boch automile is actually quite impressive. Martg76 13:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment An obituary on Boch is present in this Google cache and mentions his latter-year charitable activities. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important article. I live in Hartford and I know about boch, I even have a friend who drove up two hours to buy a car there. Very recognizable throughout the entire northeast. It is also a large business, and holds a lot of history - KEEP definatly. User:bumblebeeman3
  • Note: User's third edit. --InShaneee 03:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, fairly notable, but check for copyvio and POV. -Sean Curtin 02:24, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity on a corporate level. Feco 08:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weakish keep. Tacky-looking as the website is and all that, it seems to have some regional importance in its line of business. Probably at least as notable as most individual professional baseball-players. But no to articles of their own for Ernies Sr & Jr (in case somebody would think of adding that). / Tupsharru 06:49, 28 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. – ABCD 16:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike guggenheim

Vanity page for a non-notable. A quick Google turns up no results for this guy's work. He didn't even capitalize his last name. --Xanzzibar 20:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not yet notable, possible vanity. Jonathunder 03:17, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons stated above. -- Dcfleck 15:58, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Alternative history (fiction)#Online alternative histories. ABCD 18:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SHWI-ISOT

I don't think this is a notable game. It gets only 23 unique Google hits, or ~250 overall- and I'd argue that for an online-only entity like this, that's a very very small amount. CDC (talk) 21:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete gamecruft. The article fails to mention how many people play this game, giving rise to suspicion that it is only a couple. Non-notable until proven otherwise. --Smithfarm
• (Vote change) Merge and redirect to the alternative history page mentioned below. The game allegedly has 150 people interested in it enough to subscribe to a mailing list, which IMO is enough to warrant a mention in a larger article along with a redirect to that article. --Smithfarm
• Keep I am the one who posted this page. This is really my first experience with posting on wikipedia, though I do intend to make future contributions as time allows. Let me share some of why I posted this. I believe the game is notable due to a combination of factors; for its longevity (continuously running for 5 years), its unusual premise in gaming (it is a game where the character is one's own personae, placed in a different environment), and as an example of a very detailed alternate history scenario. These reasons are why I felt it might be worth an encyclopedia entry. It is true that the game itself is rather small, with 152 members currently subscribing to the list. I came across the game through some google RPG seaches earlier this year. I was impressed enough with the game premise to join it myself. I further felt that the alternate history the game generated was a valuable addition to the alternate histories on the web, and was one of the ones who recently encouraged the nascent construction of the WIKISOT site to make that wealth of storytelling more accessible. So in one sense, I would have to say that I am not unbiased in this discussion; in another, my own response to the game and the alternate history it has spawned makes me think it might be worthy of note. As I said, I am relatively new to posting wikipedia entries. Further reviewing some of the information on posting, I can see where this entry might be considered marginal. I will still suggest keeping it, but would certainly be willing to hear from individuals with more experience in wiki posting on alternatives that might be considered. I'd rather not simply see the entry deleted. -- Glen Finney 21:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question: is the game part of a larger framework? If so, then the article could be integrated into a larger article on that. In any case, I'd suggest updating the article to reflect how many people play the game (150 is not necessarily a small number). Then wait and see whether other people think it's notable or not. --Smithfarm

Answer: I'm not certain what you mean here by a larger framework. The game was started by members of a usenet group on alternate history, but has long since diverged. It could fit under the category of Alternative history (fiction) since its key feature is the alternate timeline the game generates. So we could Merge it with that page, and have the current page redirect to that section of the Alternative history (fiction) page.

Yes, that would work. Make a new section entitled "Games based on alternative history novels" (or similar). Then make a subsection under that with your text. --Smithfarm

Okay. Does anyone know how I should procede then? Should I just go ahead and do it, or should one of the moderators do it since this page is under discussion for deletion? I really would like to at least have this as a redirect page....I'm going to need to brush up on how to do so. -- User:Glen Finney

I'm no seasoned Wikipedian, but I think if it's your page you have every right to resolve the VfD issue by merging and redirecting it. To merge, edit the source page in one window, edit the destination page in another window, and cut and paste the text from the source to the destination. To redirect, insert the text #REDIRECT [[destination page]] in the source page text window. It should be the only text in the window. This is covered in the user manuals, too.

Reread the VfD header on the article. Editting to improve the article is allowed, but we are asked to refrain from merging, so I guess we wait for an administrator. -- User:Glen Finney

Do as you like. You certainly won't do wrong by waiting. I don't think the header instructions are carved in stone, though. Over on the Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Neltharion page someone just said: "Go ahead and merge". Perhaps the header instruction is intended especially for pages where there could be some controversy. I don't see any controversy here, though; do you? But, like I said, it's your page. Wait if you like. --Smithfarm

• Change vote of page author to: Merge and Redirect to Alternative history (fiction)#Online alternative histories I think I should probably wait until the discussion period is over. My newness to wikipedia is in part why I am here now, and I would rather not err again so soon. I have already done a redirect from a related page that was not nominated for deletion but had the same issue. I would like to see something similar done to this page, and would do it myself, but after reviewing carefully the guidelines, it appears that redirects are deferred until after discussion has closed. Tomorrow will be five days so this should close soon. Hopefully, the administrator will see my vote tag, and if there is rough concensus here, will do just that. At the very least, if they put in a conclusion to that effect, I would then be happy to do the work myself. Again, I really do want to respect the rules and guidelines here. Thank you for your interest and advice, everyone. Also, if you were to change your votes or add your votes for "Merge and Redirect" as I have done above, I believe that would help clarify that we have rough concensus, which appears to be the case from the feedback so far. -- Glen Finney 21:50, 29 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. – ABCD 22:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totally cactus

Non-notable neologism, and I'm willing to bet the guy who made it up is the one who made this article. Ketsy 21:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i dunno.

Unsigned comment by 129.44.212.147 (talk · contributions)

• Well that's helpful. Ketsy 21:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The dictionary is over there, people; and it will take "totally cactus" if you can demonstrate that the phrase is in widespread use. (Hint: In actual use, it in fact means the opposite of the definition here.) No transwiki. The original author (who also wrote "i dunno" above) appears to be around to submit it to Wiktionary xemself, directly. Delete. Uncle G 22:48, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 02:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity neologism. Gazpacho 10:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn v ngsm (testing out acronyms). -- Riffsyphon1024 10:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• In Australia, when something is cactus- its stuffed, this article is cactus, delete--nixie 09:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! Totally cactus! -- Shauri 00:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too neo-, not enough logos. Alai 07:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 16:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giada De Laurentiis

This was tagged with a speedy because "it's an advert", but she seems like a possibly notable person (16,700 hits) so I brought it here. No vote from me. 21:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) Copyvio being rewritten, Keep the rewrite. Kappa Kappa 12:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I have tagged this article as a copyvio. The bulk of the material was pulled from Giada's Food Network profile. I beleive that Giada De Laurentiis is notable enough to justify a wikipedia article, but this is not the article. --Allen3 22:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • A rewrite has been begun at Giada De Laurentiis/Temp --Allen3 23:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with rewrite. Appears to have some notability on Google. Megan1967 02:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with rewrite. Her show is gaining popularity, and she's also a cookbook author. — RJH 16:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Vote to suspend voting until the rewrite is finished. --Smithfarm
• Keep. Definitely notable, there's no doubt here. – flamurai (t) 02:32, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and proceed with rewrite. She is notable, as most noted Food Network chefs like Alton Brown, Rachael Ray, Bobby Flay, Emeril Lagasse, Mario Batali, Jamie Oliver, Tyler Florence, Paula Deen (which I wrote) and others have undisputed wikis. --Kitch 13:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This vfd can be closed. As part of the copyvio cleanup, I have deleted the original article and replaced it with the rewrite formerly at the temp page. RedWolf 04:46, Apr 2, 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. – ABCD 22:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Solomon

This article Adam Solomon is about a child born in 1989 that reads like a pseudo-resume. This article is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox point 6 states: "Self-promotion...A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable." [3]

• Delete ASAP. IZAK 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• From the article: "This page will be further updated with some of Solomon's philosophic and political musings in the coming days." Oh, no it won't. DELETE, DELETE, DELETE Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a host for personal CVs and webpages. Average Earthman 23:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've removed things that were irrelevant to Solomon's science. It is not just a page for some kid. It's a page about a research scientist who is actively involved in astronomy research, age not withstanding, with a paper to be submitted to The Astronomical Journal by the beginning of the summer. I can point out pages on Wiki for numerous other astronomers, to which I see little difference. The page is now, I believe, purely science-oriented. I apologize for anything outside of the accepted Wiki bounds, but I believe the page is now fine.

Unsigned comment by 207.190.155.115 (talk · contributions)

• • To "User:207.190.155.115" whoever you are: If you want to be taken seriously you should act like any other "normal" and "regular" Wikipedian by getting yourself a regular User's page with an appropriate identity so that people can engage you in a dialogue and not have to resort to sending you ghost signals through these kind of pages. If you are "Adam Solomon" yourself why don't you come out of hiding, unless you are hiding something..? IZAK 06:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • To Izak: I was unaware I was supposed to make an account, sorry....all of the IP address edits are mine, I believe, this is the only computer I have access to at the moment. As for international conferences, none, sadly, just planning on submitting to the 2006 AAS meeting.
  • So you're going to submit a paper? So what. I do that regularly - it's my job to. So do most of the people at work. There are plenty of University researchers around, and the vast majority (including myself) are well below the bar needed for this list. Have you been to any international astronomy conferences? The lecturers, with a hundred publications to their name, giving the invited, plenary talks might get on the list. Students who might submit a paper definitely won't. Average Earthman 12:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • To Earthman: Delete the page, then, if you want. I got the impression that the bar was quite a bit lower from some of the other astronomer/scientist pages. Sorry.
• Delete. The article still reads like vanity/resume. Google for "Adam Solomon" + astronomy gets 13 hits, so I think we can safely say he is not notable. DaveTheRed 06:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I don't believe there's such a thing as a 16-year-old notable astronomer. Delete.
  • To Anonymous: Well, define astronomer for me. (15, by the way)

Lacrimosus 09:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity CV. Fawcett5 04:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for now. Maybe in 10 years or so, if he passes the Average Professor Test, he'll be suitable for an article. --Carnildo 23:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've heard of the Average Professor Test before--what is it, out of curiosity? Adam
• Assuming that the material in the article is factual, there is a high likelihood that Mr. Solomon will be notable enough for an article at some time in the future. After all, there aren't many fifteen year old astronomers that have gotten much beyond using a telescope in the backyard. Alas, he isn't notable, yet. Delete Dsmdgold 18:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I've gone quite a bit further than backyard observing, even though I'd agree I'm not notable and, alas, probably shouldn't be on Wiki quite yet. Thanks for the kind words though ;) - Adam Ramparts 19:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 23:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cathy li

meaningless content

• Speedy delete Patent nonesense. --InShaneee 23:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete No meaningful content. - Marcika 23:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 02:28, 25 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. – ABCD 02:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner

At Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_de-adminship#Straw_poll, there is a 2-1 consensus against the entire proposed Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship process. I personally did not vote in that straw poll, but in going ahead with an actual de-adminship "vote", Netoholic is jumping the gun, ignoring consensus, and trying to unilaterally impose his own invention on Wikipedia. -- Curps 23:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• VfD has no authority over non-mainspace articles, no authority over cases of people ignoring "proposed process" in non-mainspace articles, and you haven't even tried to cite the part of the deletion policy that this is covered under, mainly because it isn't. Take your squabbles to the talk pages involved, please. Listing such things on VfD is a waste of people's time. Recommend unlisting. James F. (talk) 23:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rfde-Adm has no authority over de-adminning sysops, the Arbitration Committee does. Listing such things on Rfde-Adm is a waste of people's time. Should I go on? What's that you say... there's nothing in the deletion policy to cover this Vfd listing? Hang on a sec, maybe I'll do what Netoholic did and just write my own brand-new policy from scratch. Maybe I'll even call a vote on my brand-new policy and then ignore the consensus. -- Curps 23:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • PS, who says pages in Wikipedia namespace are outside the jurisdiction of Vfd? Note that votes for deletion are merrily proceeding for both Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office and Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition. -- Curps 03:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    To be clear, this petition is not listed at WP:RFDA, since that procedure has not been accepted. This is a petition only. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

    If that was your true intent you would have done this under Request for Comments or maybe Wikipedia:Current surveys, not as a subpage of your Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. -- Curps 01:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    There's no need to be bitchy about it. James didn't do it. And no, you can't, since two wrongs don't make a right, and two WP:POINTs don't make a line to cross. JRM 00:31, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

    This is not a WP:POINT... Netoholic is trying to unilaterally bypass all existing mechanisms and push through the de-adminning of a sysop; I'm just proposing the deletion of a stillborn page. If I actually wanted to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, I'd write up my own policy at Wikipedia:Requests for de-usership and start mere "petitions" which by a remarkable coincidence would nevertheless have titles which were subpages of it. -- Curps 01:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    I'm fairly certain the VfD does have authority: compare the cases of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a dick and Wikipedia talk:WikiMoney#From VfD, both of which were put before the VfD. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:15, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

• Delete. Bogus petition with no policy to back it. RickK 23:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Netoholic's user space. --Michael Snow 00:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• While I was in favour of a policy (but not necessarily this version), I was in the minority. I would vote delete, but apparently it is outside the jurisdiction of this process. Would an RfC be the better way to go? Thryduulf 00:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't believe this Vfd is outside the jurisdiction of the Vfd process, see above. Other pages in Wikipedia namespace are currently the subject of Vfd's. -- Curps 03:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, Delete. If it isn't trying to use a policy that wasn't agreed then its a personal attack. Thryduulf 10:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I am making no attempt to implement any action. This page is only to gather signatures of those who would like to see Snowspinner's admin status re-evaluated. I am not sure what will become of it, or what action (if any) it will result it. It is inappropriate that a petition would be listed here. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • I am making no attempt to implement any action. Good. Then this belongs in your user space, not with the bogus imprimatur you're trying to give it by putting it in Wikipedia space and creating a shortcut to it. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's just a petition, put it in your user space. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I've moved it to Netaholic's user space. Hopefully that's solved the problem and this can now be delisted from vfd Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've moved it back, because it is important we establish that petitions are appropriate for Wikipedia: space, since it is a community issue. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • <lame humor>Well before you delist it, you need to call for a Vfd for this Vfd page. Unfortunately, there's nothing in deletion policy that covers the deletion of Vfd pages. Of course, you can remedy that by just inventing your own policy. Or you can start a petition to invent such a policy... remember to put it under a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, which is our new namespace for petitions. Actually, rather than delisting this Vfd page, what you should do is move it to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Votes for deletion/Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner, because contrary to appearances this was never a Vfd at all, it was just a petition, so it belongs in the petition namespace. Or maybe now the new petition namespace is in Netoholic's user space, so we should move this page to User talk:Netoholic/Requests for de-adminship/Votes for deletion/Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner. Maybe I'll go ahead and do that. Oops, hang on. Netoholic moved it back out of his user space just now, a minute ago. Never mind.</lame humor> -- Curps 02:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Stop disrupting this vote. Moving this VfD page was improper. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Delete. This misleading page has been created by Netoholic without regard for the rules he himself set down (it's not been listed on the main WP:RFDA page as required) and without regard to the palpable lack of consensus for his otherwise interesting and thought-provoking proposal. Moreover, in the absence of a clear consensus on policy, his singling out of a particular user constitutes a personal attack on that user. The page should be deleted and he should be considered for severe censure--something that will stop him repeating this kind of very serious personal attack. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have favoured moving it to user space, but the originator clearly doesn't want that. This cannot be viewed as unconnected with the RFDA process, since it's a subpage. It's bad faith to proceed with the RFDA idea when it looks like being voted down.-gadfium 03:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I have to give points to Netoholic for coming up with new and original ways of being a royal PITA without actually breaking any rules. Although I think both the policy proposal and the petition are without merit, I'm neutral about deleting this. older≠wiser 03:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, since you're neutral and your only reason to post this was to berate me, I'll answer. All I did was create a petition to gather information. I didn't make this VfD listing. If someone objected to the location or page name, they could have contacted me first. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Delete this disgraceful farce. Ban the responsible parties. (sigh) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just plain outragious. - RedWordSmith 03:21, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, conniving. silsor 03:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since Netoholic doesn't want it in his userspace. --Carnildo 03:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as abusive disruption. --iMb~Meow 04:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Involvied party/parties should go sit in the corner. android↔talk 04:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If offended parties have a problem with any administrator, they should submit an RfC, request mediation, or file a case with the Arbcom. This page serves no purpose whatsoever as a legitimate instrument of policy, until RFDA has been accepted by the community. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:08, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Delete Misleading and inappropriate place for a "petition". Start an RfC, or find a less loaded place for such if there's really some deep and necessary distinction to be made from such. Alai 08:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No current policy provides that space with such a purpose. El_C 10:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Move the page to RFAr talk: . Move to an RFAr subpage, but add large disclaimer as appropriate and protect it. I would have said delete , but this is evidence for the RFAr against Netoholic, so it needs to be preserved. His earlier behaviour was borderline, and I was actually thinking of writing an amicus arbitratorai (is that a real word? :-P ) in his favor, but this goes over the line by a very solid margin. Kim Bruning 10:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as personal attack. Radiant_* 11:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This is a clear attempt to subvert the consensus shown in the votes at WP:RFDA. Since that proposal very clearly has no consensus for it, the issue should instead be considered within the current Wikipedia dispute resolution processes and more specifically as a Request for Comments. Or, if Netoholic really thinks that Snowspinner should be removed as an administrator, then he should file a Request for arbitration. On the other hand, if he just wants to create a Straw poll on Snowspinner as an admin, then it should be a separate page in the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia:Snowspinner straw poll?) and not as a subpage of his current policy proposal Request for de-adminship. BlankVerse ∅ 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inventing policy is fun, but should not be encouraged, and this petition is plain insulting. (There are other ways to make such requests.) — Itai (f&t) 15:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Deliberate attempt to flout community consensus, force through policy, and harass individuals. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just more harassment from an increasingly irrational and obsessive editor. KingOfAllPaperboys 18:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment User:KingOfAllPaperboys is likely a sockpoppet, see evidence at:[4] Unfortunately this needs to be investigated quickly since he hasn't edited in 3 days, and I believe IP logs expire in 7 days.--Silverback 21:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If RFDA is not a consensus-supported process, then this page is a personal attack. Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks counsels the deletion of personal attacks. I think an administrator could simply delete or redirect it However, if somebody wants the sanction of a VFD consensus to delete it, I add my voice for deletion. --BM 22:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since the policy is far from being adopted, this doesn't belong here. gcbirzan^talk 22:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is just pure harrassment. Any rogue admins should be dealt with through the Arbitration process. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 23:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure, unadultered, grade-A idiocy. --Neutrality^talk 07:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - The more stomping on Snowspinner, the better. Snowspinner seems like the perfect admin to test the new procedure on. -- John Gohde 22:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Please refrain from personal attacks. Thryduulf 23:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Please learn the difference between criticism and true personal attacks. -- Netoholic @ 23:46, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

  from WP:NPA:

  • Be Civil - "The more stomping on Snowspinner, the better." doesn't seem particularly civl to me. From WP:CIV: "Civility is a rule here on Wikipedia. Where incivility here is defined as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress" (italics in original, my bolding)/
  • Stick to good Wikiquette. From Wikipedia:Wikiquette:

  • Be polite.
  • Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
  • Forgive and forget.

  • Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party.
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.

  I'd say that those two sentences consitute a personal attack under all of these. Thryduulf 00:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  I don't think John knows, no. Also, he clearly can't tell the difference between a real administrative procedure and a personal vendetta ginned-up to look official. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are votes, straw polls, and elections appropriate for Wikipedia:, but not petitions? Is this vote really just about it being a sub-page of RFDA? -- Netoholic @ 03:44, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • And he accuses Snowspinner of making up policy as he goes along... Surely there are better ways to propose —and implement— policy changes. Providing there is consensus for these, we should hope. El_C 10:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• An appropriate response to this vfd might be to transform it into a RfC. He already has two supporters so if they can agree on a single issue where they have evidence of unresolved grievances they can kick it off and have community discussion. If a consensus arrives that Snowspinner should not be an admin by reason of abuse of power or for some other valid reason, arbcom could be directed to investigate (their charter directs that they'll take cases when ordered to do so by the community). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page move

I have moved the page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner2 and reformatted it.

It is wholly inappropriate and unseemly to attempt to utilize a nonexistent mechanism that clearly lacks community support as a means of dealing with a personal dispute. The RFC mechanism is the means presently available for dealing with such matters, and so Netoholic's dispute properly belongs there. Since a major goal of the RFC process is to centralize such disputes to avoid having them scattered across the wiki, I have chosen to be bold in moving it there.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not only did Netoholic delete the redirect, he pasted it back in without the VfD header. The evidence of his bad faith and intellectual dishonesty is piling up. --Calton | Talk 03:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is what it is. It is not an RFC, it is not a personal page of mine, It's a petition on the specific subject subject of Snowspinner. If the community votes to delete it, so be it, as long as they clearly understand what they are deleting. I appreciate that everyone wants to help "handle this" in various ways, but the one way that was not explored was asking me first. I'd have been happy to clear up the misconceptions early on. -- Netoholic @ 03:42, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Any "misconceptions" are of your creation, and it's hard not to believe they're not deliberate. This is, in fact, a personal, unofficial petition, so your user page is precisely where it belongs, Yet, you're hellbent on having this thing under the banner of your phony Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship policy page. Why is that?.

If the community votes to delete it, so be it Yet, you deleted the VfD tag in your latest revert. An actual revert wouldn't have done that, so it must have been deliberate. Why is that? --Calton | Talk 03:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue on this VfD page. Find a relevant talk page to bring this to, and stop talking to me in that manner. -- Netoholic @ 03:58, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

I think, actually, the community has voted to delete it. The usual VfD term is of course 5 days, but in most cases the heavy turnout is the first day or two, and under these circumstances I really can't imagine why the overwhelming trend of comments would reverse itself. Perhaps instead of getting people wound up over whether the VfD tag is properly on the page, Netoholic could spare everyone the non-suspense by slapping a {{delete}} tag on it instead. --Michael Snow 04:04, 26 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. – ABCD 16:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emirates Internet Society

Started in 2000, closed in 2002 because of lack of interest. Minimal impact on English language internet: helped 180 students get some training once [5]. Delete as non-notable.--Henrygb 23:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 02:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable defunct society. --Smithfarm
• Delete. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 14:58, 2005 Mar 28 (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. – ABCD 16:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Dream for a Future with Alternative Energy

• Delete essay. Gazpacho 23:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, essay, and generally worthless, Gazpacho, you beat me to nominating this one. BigFatDave 23:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dave said it best. Bletch 00:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete essay. Rl 09:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep essay. I would recommend more factual links but the content does not violate Wiki standards. Bogusstory
  • still not growing, it seems the author feels no need to defend/amend their work. At the bare minimum, keeping this article would require re-titling and extensive cleanup, but the article on Future energy development seems to be working in this direction nicely. What is the policy on articles where useful info is scanty, and duplicated elsewhere? BigFatDave 00:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) (oh, and Bogusstory, "delete essay" doesn't mean 'delete this essay' ... it means 'delete because it is an essay'. So keep essay is sort of a non-sequitur.)
• Delete Essay AND POV propaganda. Same guy that brought us the other VfD 9/11 open questions. --Kitch 13:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This does appear in style to be an essay. If the author has some useful additions to give, I recommend they be added to the article Future energy development. -- Glen Finney 20:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. Dsmdgold 15:10, Mar 31, 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.