Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 21

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. --Rhobite 21:26, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sirius-serious merger

Nominated by an anonymous contributor who posted the VFD notice but didn't complete the rest of the nomination process. I won't speculate as to the reason for nomination. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 00:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: these words appear to have been randomly chosed to represent this "vowel merge", relevant google hits appear to be wikipedia mirrors. I believe it is describing a real phenomenon, so this might be merged or renamed. Kappa 00:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An earlier anon today put a VfD notice on father-bother merger, then deleted it himself and redirected the article to Fucking father-bother merger. Since the current anon did not give any reason or complete the VfD process I am removing the VfD notice as vandalism. The same anon IP that nominated this page vandalized Hippie a few hours earlier [1] (but possibly not the same person).

See Category:English pronunciation mergers, there are a couple dozen similar "pronunciation merger" articles here. Too many to merge into a single article, and each of them could eventually be expanded to give more detail about the geographic extent of each pronunciation and its history, including maps and perhaps even Ogg media files with actual audio pronunciations.

If someone else wishes to legimitately re-nominate this article, they can of course do so. -- Curps 01:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• There were a whole load of these that came in all at the same time. See Category:English pronunciation mergers. Also see the edits to American English from the same author. There were a whole load of "yod dropping before X" articles (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Yod-dropping) that came in at around the same time, too. They were all merged to Yod-dropping. Basically, all of the specific list items from the phonology section of American English have been broken out into their own articles.
  Since, like the yod droppings, these have relevance outside of U.S. English, I'm with Kappa: either Merge all of the vowel merger articles to Vowel merger phonemic differentiation or Keep. Uncle G 01:49, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• I replaced the VfD tag because I think it's a valid nomination. I have no vote until I look into it more carefully. I'm thinking if there are a bunch of these they can probably be merged, and this is as good a place to discuss it as any. -R. fiend 04:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Although the list of "mergers" recently added to American English looks like it may well require some serious revision — my strong suspicion is that many of them, such as "yod-dropping", are historically bogus, and assume the prescriptionist tradition of southern England's boarding-school English as both normative and deeply rooted in history — this isn't the place to decide any of these issues. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure. On the one hand, I support the idea of keeping these "pronunciation merger" articles; on the other hand, Google seems to come up empty on this precise term "Sirius-serious". Some other ones are very well known, eg, cot-caught merger. So if this merger is real and notable, it seems to be known under some other name. The expert out there seems to be William Labov, who in 2005 is publishing the Atlas of North American English. His website is here: [2]. Maybe someone can send him an e-mail and ask his opinion? -- Curps 04:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge seems appropriate. Radiant! 08:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete (and I would support deleting any similar material) Very minor mispronunciation. What if we had an article for every mispronunciation in every language, region, dialect, accent, speech impediment, etc? Very unlikely this will be searched for by name. Also impossible for this to evolve beyond a substub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • These aren't mispronunciations. Nor are they minor. These are genuine dialectical differences. The pronunciation guide of the OED1 tacitly acknowledged similar vowel differences and mergers to these, as a matter of fact. (It had different symbols for vowels that, although pronounced the same in one dialect, were pronounced differently in others.) The main questions are (a) whether these are the widely-accepted names of these differences, and (b) whether these differences would be better off grouped into a single article on vowel mergers or vowel shifts, to give context. Curps seems to think that the answer to the latter is that they would not. However, from looking around a bit at existing articles, there seems to be some duplication going on here. All of the yod-droppings were definite merger candidates. I was initially less sure of the vowel mergers, but am becoming more convinced. Uncle G 15:41, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think the term "pronunciation merger" is used in linguistics to define this. I would vote to merge all those articles into the same place, but I'm not sure where. Perhaps a Phonology of American English? JoaoRicardo 01:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought of breaking out the phonology section of American English, too. But these really do have relevance outside of U.S. English, as I said. Uncle G 02:23, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Yes, the term "merger" really is used in linguistics. See the website of William Labov, mentioned above. -- Curps 03:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed; "merger" is indeed used to describe the levelling of two formerly discrete phonemes in linguistics. I do question the factual accuracy of this particular merger, especially given that it is named for two non-native inkhorn terms: to demonstrate the reality of this phenomenon, it would be necessary to show that Sirius was a name on everybody's lips, and that it had a historically attested pronunciaiton different from serious that once existed most everywhere but was lost in certain dialects. The historical primacy and unaltered purity of certain varieties of British English seem to be the assumption he's working from. But an accuracy dispute does not make a case for deletion. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Feel free to dispute the accuracy of phonemic differentiation, where I've merged all of the merger articles apart from this one (as it is still pending deletion). I've explicitly asked for a POV check. A fact check is in order, too. Uncle G 17:59, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
• Merge all merger articles. – flamurai (t) 18:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge along with the related articles. There has been a crop of these merger articles showing up, and the liklihood of them being searched by individual name is low. The information is relevant but it would be better suited to a single article listing and describing pronunciation mergers in English. Arkyan 18:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with all other merger articles. – AxSkov 00:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with apprpriate articles.--Directorstratton 09:28, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the articles on phonemic mergers in English have been merged into Phonemic differentiation; this one should be too. --Angr 10:27, 4 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. jni 17:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam fight back

Original research, kinda. It's apparently some suggestions for fighting spam, not very easy to understand, and I don't see how Wikipedia can use it, even under a different title. It did have a speedy tag, but it wasn't speedied for a couple of days, so I brought it here. Kappa 00:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --nixie 02:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A google search of "Spam fight back" gets only 3 relavent hits DaveTheRed 03:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have personally never heard this term, and I am on the IT business and deal with SPAM issues daily. --Sn0wflake 16:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Poor title and too much an essay. jni 09:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ditto all of the above (except I'm not currently in IT except as a consultant). HyperZonk^talk 18:32, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Improve*

To Sn0wflake: Can you improve it? This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well defined outcome

A list of questions to ask oneself to achieve a well-defined (or well-formed?) outcome. Not encyclopedic; I don't believe the topic is either, at least not without starting over. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 00:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless fixed. It's basically a how-to. Linked from Neurolinguistic programming, but statistics, game theory etc also have a concept of well defined outcomes. Kappa 00:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not very descriptive; if it had a source, it'd make more sense, somewhat. But as it is, it looks like it was extracted straight from a self-improvement book. --Sn0wflake 03:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but it needs a complete re-write. Well-formed outcome is a concept that could have a valid entry. A quick google search for "well-formed outcome" found this and this. Surely there's enough info here to make a decent article. --DaveTheRed 03:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Like my teacher says, "this is ugly". Delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The well defined outcome of this will be deletion. -R. fiend 04:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• A "how-to" guide, and I am being generous. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Of no value. Giano 15:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Since as it was mentioned it is part of Neurolinguistic programming, and it is very important concept in that one, I would suggest to put it there or redirect to other NLP pages.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonny Bryant

Vanity page. 64.219.97.19 00:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Non-notable teenager vanity page, delete --nixie 02:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Sn0wflake 03:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly vanity, probably could have been speedied. - TB 12:44, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Delete, Just some kid. --StoatBringer 11:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Sojourn

Belongs in wiktionary User:damicatz 00:24, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• It's already in Wiktionary, and has been for months. Delete. Uncle G 01:02, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Since that's the case, this can be deleted --nixie 02:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since iterwiki would be useless. --Sn0wflake 03:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. CSD rule A2 should be expanded to cover cases like this. jni 08:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That was my immediate thought, too. Uncle G 13:49, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete under CSD case A2 (leftover after successful transwiki). The current wording of the case is a holdover from when the only other WikiMedia projects were other languages. Rossami (talk) 02:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. HyperZonk^talk 18:29, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Stefanie Veneziano

I think Stefanie Veneziano does deserve to have her own article here on Wikipedia.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "shera borden"

Wikipedia is not a news service. And this is too dated (the original is dated 2000) for WikiNews. Uncle G 01:54, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:25, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non stardard naming so anyone that might be looking for this unnotable law case wouldn't be able to find this anyway--nixie 02:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• A shame this was written by the govt. and can't be removed through copyvio. Delete. Meelar (talk) 02:32, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Sn0wflake 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless, cut and paste press release. Gamaliel 03:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not an encyclepedia article. Gives a new meaning to the rule that "Wikipedia is not paper". Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not wikinews. HyperZonk^talk 18:07, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ReEDIT

Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. And a quick search turns up nothing notable for a rewrite. Uncle G 02:02, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Advertising, delete --nixie 02:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another ad from a company that could have legitimately PR'd itself by donating money to the WikiMedia Foundation. Especially as there is a Big Fundraiser on right now! HyperZonk^talk 02:37, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertisement/promo. Megan1967 04:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - see above. Tygar 03:30, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 18:09, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1959-60 American network television schedule

There are many others like these in Category:TV schedules. Unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge database nor a directory.. JoaoRicardo 02:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, who would want to know this anyway? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • People who are interested in or researching the TV industry and history. Zzyzx11 04:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful, interesting and encyclopedic info that can't easily be found elsewhere (that I know of) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The only other place where I know this information can be found is The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows (ISBN 0345455428), but it is not revised every year. Zzyzx11 04:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You are correct on that one. Mike H 05:05, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is very interesting, in a way. What appears on television is a reflexion of how the mainstream person thinks. --Sn0wflake 03:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is encyclopedic info that can't easily be found elsewhere. Zzyzx11 04:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a great series of articles, kudos to those who have worked hard to create it. - SimonP 05:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I created these sets of articles, and I believe these are quite helpful for people who want to research trends in American television history. All of these articles have been linked on the respective year in television page, from 1959 in television to 1996 in television. I haven't been able to finish 1997 to 2002, but I will soon, tomorrow, if possible. Mike H 05:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yet another attempt to stifle the potential of Wikipedia rather than encourage it. Wincoote 07:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you have proof that I am "stifling the potential of Wikipedia", please present them to me or call an RfC. However, if you simply disagree with me on the usefulness of this article, please respect my opinion as I have respected yours. Thank you. JoaoRicardo 02:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Shouldn't such a schedule belong in Wikisource instead? Radiant! 08:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why, exactly? It would be much more useful here in the Wikipedia. I read over what should be in Wikisource and I don't believe this fits the criterion. The whole point was to not only research television trends, but to have the links in an accessible manner, which would have the whole purpose defeated by moving to Wikisource. Mike H 08:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, because it is a primary source, namely the TV guide (hopefully it's not copyvio?). A wikisource article can still have links, including links to Wikipedia. Radiant! 13:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Why would a chart showing what times aired what be a copyvio? It's common knowledge. That would be akin to copyrighting the periodic table of elements. In any case, if you want to continue this conversation, I'd rather it not be on this page, for space reasons. You can continue this with me on my talk page. Mike H 21:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- it'll be a wonderful challenge for somebody to try to turn all those red links blue. --Christofurio 15:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - encyclopedic as is all the others and I agree with Christofurio that this is a way to challenge people to write articles. Remember the adage: "Wikipedia is not paper". 23skidoo 15:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Strong keep! This is enormously useful information for people who are interested in television history or who are just interested in reliving the TV schedules of their youth. Television is a big part of US culture (like it or not) and its collective memory, and I'm surprised that anyone would seriously want to delete these contributions to Wikipedia. Moncrief 04:10, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Factual, verifiable, useful, and cool. Gamaliel 04:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. Extremely useful information. More deletioncruft madness.--Centauri 12:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please don't refer to diferent opinions than yours as "deletioncruft madness". Please assume good faith and act with civility. Thank you. JoaoRicardo 02:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Holy mother of keep. Ditto for the entire series of related articles. Way too much sweat, toil and actual research went into these articles and they are prime examples of what Wikipedia is and should be. - Lucky 6.9 00:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this and entire series. Good article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is a very unique and interesting subject article that I have had much trouble trying to find elsewhere. Most Definitely Keep! Tygar 07:32, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Of value Giano 15:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting, and useful--SarekOfVulcan 22:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MJ morning show

What a piece of crap. Non-notable, poorly written. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fixed so,ethings...will add pic of crew when i can figure out how.

Don't bother!Brookie

• Radiostations are notable, most radio shows are not, no proof of notability established, delete--nixie 03:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, station promo. Megan1967 04:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Not an article. Not anything, really. -R. fiend 05:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's broadcast on any notable stations. And remember civility. Kappa 03:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I will keep that in mind, Kappa. It's a nice piece of crap. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 03:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, probably just added to advertise the show. - TB 12:46, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Delete. 66.188.220.252 05:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tygar 07:34, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Brookie 13:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep ya know.....don'y yall have something better to do than mess with this aritcle....its not like its brothering u

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Per the deletion log:

• 22:44, Feb 27, 2005 Kosebamse deleted Mp3 in education (chat, not encyclopedic)

[edit] Mp3 in education

A request for information --nixie 03:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this looks like someone's homework. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, would suit an User Page better. --Sn0wflake 04:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tagged for speedy. Clearly by someone who doesn't know what wikipedia is. -R. fiend 04:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move to User:Gstiler. Not encyclopaedic enough for inclusion in the main pedia. Megan1967 04:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This sounds more like a question on a forum than an encyclopedia article. --Tezeti 05:09, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no useful content and we probbly couldn't make a useful article under this title anyway. An article on the social effects of widely-available free electronic libraries (including a section on music) might be nice though. - TB 12:49, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. --Rhobite 21:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melvin and Teddy

Subpage of Peanut Foot - badly written article about a non-notable web cartoon. Zetawoof 03:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 04:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peanut Foot for details. Zzyzx11 06:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not Notable? It exists, doesn't it? That should make it notable. 70.57.72.83 16:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not everything that exists is notable. Similarly, not everything that is notable actually exists (e.g. unicorn). Delete. Radiant! 18:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Huh. Well, you got me there. 70.57.72.83
• Short-running, poorly read web comic. I'll eat my words when its widely read and reasonably well established, until then delete - TB 12:51, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above. vlad_mv 01:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• How come they deleted Peanut Foot but not Melvin and Teddy? 70.57.72.83
  • We're working on it.Zetawoof 05:51, 28 Feb 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. --Rhobite 21:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Top 500 Rock n' Roll Songs

This list is a mess and unencyclopedic anyway. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article does not establish that this is a notable list. This is a notable list, for example. Gamaliel 03:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Isn't this a clear copyright violation? It's just copy pasted from here Preisler 04:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Under Feist v. Rural, I don't think you can copyright a simple list of songs. Gamaliel 04:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't just a simple list of songs, it's one source's own critical desicison as to the best 500 songs of all time. That makes it a copyright violation. If it were a neutral listing of the 500 biggest-selling songs of all time, then it would not be a copyright violation. Delete RickK 21:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is pretty embarrasing since IAALS but American copyright is not exactly covered in Danish law school. Removing my copyvio warning Preisler 04:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't quote me on this, all I know about this is what I read on Wikipedia. ;) Gamaliel 05:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a clearly different case to Feist v. Rural - I believe that this is copyrightable as a collection of information. In Feist v. Rural, the names and addresses of telephone subscribers were a simple matter of fact. This is someone's opinion on what are the 500 Greatest Rock 'n Roll Songs, and I believe as such is copyrightable. "Information [...] cannot contain any of the "expressive" content added by the source author. That includes not only the author's own comments, but also his choice of which facts to cover, [...] his order of presentation (unless it is something obvious like an alphabetical list), any evaluations he may have made about the quality of various pieces of information, or anything else that might be considered "original creative work" of the author rather than mere facts." - the Feist_v._Rural page. I believe that under this, this page is copyrightable and therefore a copyright violation. Oh, and delete whether we decide it's copyright or not :-) TSP 11:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete regardless. It's going to be POV no matter the source. – flamurai (t) 04:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• I don;t think you can copyright a list like this, but since it doesn't agree with what I think the top 500 rock 'n' roll songs are it's clearly just plain wrong. Delete. -R. fiend 04:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable list. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV list, does not establish notability. Megan1967 04:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I made the list more readable though. --Tezeti 05:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it: I'm for the article. I was the one that put it there and I think it should stay. I wasn't sure that it would be considered an article by the wikipedia community. I think it should stay.--Rentastrawberry 05:35, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course you would want it to stay. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Carrp | Talk 05:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just only using one list for that article is POV. Why does it have to be about.com's list and not from somebody else? Zzyzx11 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete under this name. Rolling Stone has just published a list of its greatest 500 songs and it is a common radio statio feature. There have been two run in Canberra in the past year. We would need to be convinced that About.com has a special status in determining such things and it should be described in the total. Capitalistroadster 10:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently POV. What might be a good alternative article, though, would be a list of songs considered the greatest of all time (with verifiable sources for each one), similar to our List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since this is just a list copied from a book. Other Top 100/Top 500 lists exist and feature different songs. I'm not against the concept of such an article, however it needs to come from a more "scientific" source such as Billboard which bases its list upon imperical evidence such as sales or airplay. 23skidoo 15:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because they gave Bruce Springsteen a better rank than Blue Öyster Cult. Ha ha, only serious. Delete it because it's a POV magnet, a list, and a probable copyvio. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-authorative list. What Billboard or Rolling Stone mags consider the top-500, maybe, but about.com? I don't think so. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll seems to cover the topic sufficiently. Niteowlneils 18:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe redir to reduce the chances of going thru this again? Niteowlneils 18:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete inherently POV list. Fire Star 20:40, 21 Feb 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

[edit] O o

Does every smiley really need its' own article? Longhair 04:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 04:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This article was removed by speedy deletion. — Brim 04:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decentralization (postmodern definition)

Original research. -Seth Mahoney 04:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Essay, not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: essay. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. - TB 12:53, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elance

I don't think every brand of underwear should be included in Wikipedia. There is no mention of why this is noteworthy. Delete. — Brim 04:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 05:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there isn't even an article on the company that makes this style of underpants--nixie 06:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, especially not this one. Ick! -- Riffsyphon1024 06:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. —Korath (Talk) 18:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaseidramon

Apparent re-creation of a deleted article. I don't know if this is different enough from the original to warrant a new VfD, or anything. Reading articles like this hurts my very soul, so I have no read it in its entirety, nor do I remember the deleted article enough to compare the two. I'd vote delete or merge, just because thats how I feel about basically all Poke- or Digi- mon, so I don't expect to be heeded on that basis. But I think this line from the article's conlcusion is wirth noting "It's safe to say this character will never make it into any Digimon movie or episode". Old VfD below. -R. fiend 05:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Old VfD now restored to a separate page. This page renamed and votes moved so that we can preserve the old vote as a complete archive. Rossami (talk) 02:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as before, unless there's some verification of its existence. As before, I am skeptical, because the premise sounds implausible. Digimon is a children's show and this is apparently some psychopath killer Digimon: "the gruesome tendency to blow holes in people's (human people's) chests with a nearby shotgun". Everyking 05:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 05:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, re-creation of VfD'd article. Szyslak 06:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It's an exact copy of the last one. Xezbeth 07:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Already deleted once. --BM 18:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --nixie 06:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. Carrp | Talk 07:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be non-canonical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted under CSD case G4 (recreated content). Rossami (talk) 03:01, 23 Feb 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) 18:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MV Abegweit

Page provides no useful information. Just two rather large images of boats. Kaldari 05:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, image copyright should be checked too--nixie 06:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve: This was a notable vessel as the prime connection between Prince Edward Island and the rest of Canada prior to the construction of the Confederation Bridge. Having said that, it's a pretty crappy article and has to be vastly improved for it to be kept. Please allow a little time for the Canadian Wikiteam to work on it. Thanks. Kevintoronto 16:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks for improving the article, Kevin. I withdraw my original complaint now.
• Strong keep. The Abegweit is as much a cultural icon for Islanders as the Bluenose is for Canadians. I have also improved the article :) - Jord 18:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, significant boat and now a well-written article. - TB 12:54, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form. --Deathphoenix 04:50, 1 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. jni 17:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feild Park

Stub apparently abandoned by its creator. Delete.-gadfium 05:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Stub? Joke IMO, it's claimed to be part of an elementary school, and the historic place where 48 snowmen met thier (sic) fate on April 2, 2002 as the snow melted. Part of a spree by an anon considered a vandal by some. Andrewa 05:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 05:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Moon & Company

Non-notable. Google found only 582 hits, and most of them seem to be information copied from Wikipedia. All Music Guide has never heard of them. If this gets deleted, then I think we should delete Jason Frost, and Love Junkies as well, since they seem to be from the same source. --DaveTheRed 05:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If I was interested in this band, this page could be of interest. It could do with bulking out though. Since there isn't another Blue Moon and Company, there's no risk of confusion, so I don't see the harm in keeping it. User:christidy
  • It's not what harm it does. It's what good it does. We are constructing an encyclopaedia here, not a big list of everything. And we have notability guidelines for this sort of thing. The article doesn't provide evidence that the subject meets any of the criteria. Delete. Uncle G 15:11, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

I AGREE!!!

PLEASE READ FIRST:

Wikipaedia decision maker. Jason Frost was a Sunshine Bandmember withMajor label, KC & Sunshine Band, as well as an important part of rock n roll history in Olympia-Seattle area, who continues to create music for his devoted fans like myself. You can check here, as well as the many, many, links thoughout this page on his newspaper articles, press, artist pages, and movie film database on major film, etc. He is notable. Android79 has done nothing but angered me and played games and muddied up this page.

A search for "jason frost kc & sunshine band" turned up folowwing results: MTV listings: http://www.mtv.com/movies/person/337491/personmain.jhtml

(The star next to his name means he is notable to MTV!!!)

Wikipaedia requires for a band or artist personality to be listed he must have been a member of a notable band, KC & Sunshine Band, had hits like "get down tonight" and others. His being a member of this band makes him notable, even though I find this the least notable of his accomplishments. I vote to KEEP his other related band entries! - Timk

See discussion under JASON FROST deletion where numerous links are posted as well verifing the notability of this artist for his fans...

• Delete all three, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all three of them. No allmusic.com entries. Gamaliel 06:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 06:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity, possible hoax. Android79 02:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All three. vlad_mv 01:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Someone keeps spamming Grunge with a link to this non-notable band. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 05:08, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 06:03, 1 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. --Rhobite 21:45, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bolivian Space Program

Does any of this make any sense? The author talks about a satelite instead of a program. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to vote keep, presuming this is accurate and verifiable. Perhaps it should be moved. Everyking 06:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it: "OF COURSE" I'd want to keep it, I wrote it. Anyway the answer to your question Riff...is that this satellite is the Bolivian Space Program.
  • How can one satelite be the program? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Its a hoax, delete it. The phrase "Bolivian Space Program" gets no real hits on google, and the external link, that claims to be for a satellite manufacturer that will sell you a satellite for ~$27000 has this tid-bit in the fine print Seeking interracial movies? Click for interracial movies. Considering transsexual dating? Click for transsexual dating info. Click for Los Angeles hair replacement, & hair loss treatment; a real satellite manufacturer, I seriously doubt it --nixie 06:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Nice Web site. In Soviet Russia, Sputnik launches you. Anyway, Bolivia is involved in some cooperative commercial space stuff, but Brazil is doing the coordination. --iMeowbot~Mw 12:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. From comments above, the current article appears to be a hoax and should be deleted (I'm at work, so there's no way I'm clicking on that link). An article on Bolivian involvement in satellite technology may be a useful article, but not from this. Average Earthman 13:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Hoax, spam for a personal page, or something. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless much better evidence provided prior to expiration of VfD. anywho.com knows of no businesses in Roswell named "CCA" or "C. L. Haan." Neither does switchboard.com. Website looks like a joke. Very odd that a business would describe itself as "Located just outside Roswell, N.M. on Highway 285" but not provide any street address. All Google hits on "C. L. Haan" are to a druggist in the Netherlands. clhaanind gets an odd variety of hits. Not indexed in archive.org, I wonder why not. whois registration of clhaanind.com is: "Ixat Corp, PMB 285, 4933 W. Craig Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89130, US 818-487-7269." Weird enough to delete unless some very good, consistent, verifiable, well-sourced explanation is provided. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ogame/index/technology/energy

This article looks like a page from some game's strategy guide. The title is terrible and the content is unencyclopedic. Delete. Carrp | Talk 06:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this pages contains no salvagable information --nixie 06:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: no context, not an article, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The author has created 7 of these weirdly named pages that should probably all be speedied as they have no real contents Preisler 06:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are many thing wikipedia is not. This is many of those things. -R. fiend 08:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 14:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of Annie

Notability not established. The don't seem to live up to Wikiproject:Music's guidelines. Preisler 06:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No allmusic.com entry. Gamaliel 06:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no album has been relseased yet, and unless the anon that wrote this was Dane Jackson, then its a copyvio too--nixie 06:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. The copyvio issue can't be handled by VfD. Carrp | Talk 06:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable, promo. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:44, 21 Feb 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. --Rhobite 21:48, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good morning west tennessee

One of hundreds of local morning shows; non-notable. Szyslak 06:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I live in Tennessee, and I haven't even heard of this. Delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the channel is probably notable, this show is not --nixie 06:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is a notable show on WBBJ in Jackson, TN, and I noticed that three of you don't even live in Tennessee, one lives in California, and the other two live in Australia, so who are you to say the show doesn't exist? To prove that the show is legit, go to www.wbbjtv.com and click on gmwt
  • This comment by user 65.7.40.62. Andrewa 14:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Never said it doesn't exist, it's just not notable. Szyslak 08:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Created by a vandal. -R. fiend 08:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• What do you mean it was created by a vandal? What's that mean? Because I am definitely not a vandal. It could be the people that I share my computer with. I guess I need to sign up and get a user name to avoid confusion.
  • This comment also by user 65.7.40.62. Andrewa 14:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I may give you the benefit of the doubt this time. Though looking at the timing of the edits I'm inclined not to. -R. fiend 09:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• By the way, Megan1967, I understand that someone had vandalized your profile page. I am truly sorry for this and I will try to make sure whoever did it doesn't do it again.
  • This comment also by user 65.7.40.62. Andrewa 14:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is already mentioned on the (incorrectly named) Wbbj article, which has all the info needed. Redirect if you're feeling really charitable. Local stations get articles, local news programmes which are only broadcast on that station do not. Average Earthman 13:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, being bold, I've moved the station article to WBBJ. Average Earthman 13:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Local radio stations have morning shows. So? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Goodness! Why do we persist in saying that just because something isn't incredibly well known, there shouldn't be information about it here? Are we out of hard drive space? Zantastik 21:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No, but we're going for quality of articles rather than quantity. Delete. Radiant! 12:24, Feb 28, 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. --Rhobite 21:49, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welivetogether.com

This page should be deleted because it is an advertisement for a porn website. Tkessler 06:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Wish I could speedy it, but doesn't quite fit the requirements. – ClockworkSoul 06:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gamaliel 07:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Not notable Longhair 07:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that this is a notable website. Andrewa 08:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 13:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thinly veiled advertising. Kosebamse 15:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not against notable porn sites having articles, and this site is fairly notable, but the article as written is just an ad. Do we really need a description of the disclaimer page? 23skidoo 15:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'd argue that popularity doesn't neccisarily make notibility. This article is Exhibit A.--InShaneee 20:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree it reads like an advertisement. Articles about porn sites are not inherently bad, but the site has to be pretty special to be notable. This one certainly isn't. 85.76.152.179 05:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 15:09, 23 Feb 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. --Rhobite 21:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xerofusion

Band vanity -- Longhair 06:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, band vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable vanity. Carrp | Talk 07:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity, delete - TB 13:00, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Transwiki or merge with something. no consensus to delete. --Rhobite 21:55, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool

Dicdef of a sysadmin slang term from the Jargon File. Unlikely to grow any larger. jdb ❋ (talk) 04:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. "Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool" is a famous hacker expression, and without articles like these its meaning is not immediately obvious. 193.167.132.66 07:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right in that the meaning is non-obvious, but Wikipedia is not a guide to jargon usage. jdb ❋ (talk) 08:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Dicdef'ish... transwiki, or merge into hacker slang. Radiant! 08:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur Kappa 08:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, redirect this entry to hacker slang - David Gerard 15:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteIt is a dicdef, so it should be deleted, BUT, it should be moved to Wiktionary, which welcomes dicdefs :). I've placed a basic entry at Wiktionary:Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool.Superm401 02:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Is it meant to be Loser... ? Jeff Knaggs|Talk 12:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a contraction of loser and user, see luser. Thue | talk 12:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect dicdef to BOFH and/or luser. Thue | talk 12:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete context-free dicdef. CDC (talk) 04:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but move to Wiktionary, unless someone adds some historical information about it, like what's in the luser article. Or maybe THAT should be moved to Wiktionary too. Shadowlord | talk 17:45, 27 Feb 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. --Rhobite 22:00, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitolo Otto

Patent nonsense. Talk page has a student confirming that he's heard of it; that's it. Absent published external verification, this should be deleted. jdb ❋ (talk) 03:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Secret society cruft. jni 14:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Aren't all but a few of these societies impossible to prove? This one seems as credible as any other. AppleTop 12:12, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes; that's rather the problem. Delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a secret society if everybody's heard of it. Not a notable conspiracy theory. Radiant! 13:13, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Unconfirmed claims at best, patent nonsense at worst. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Restoring my vote, which has been "accidentally" deleted by AppleTop. - Mike Rosoft 17:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Or did they just make me say that to preserve their secrecy? Who can tell? - TB 13:10, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax (some of it is almost certainly hoax or such), unless solid reference provided. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a real society; I know that much. 05:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. --Rhobite 22:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Leveque

Vanity. Gamaliel 06:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Seems like a decent enough guy, but not notable. Sorry. --InShaneee 20:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Compare Justin Leveque's quake handle "CybrVillain" to the authorswikipedia handle "CybrVillain" - TB 13:07, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Delete or user-fy. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:02, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Rhobite 22:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Huntoon

This person doesn't seem notable enough, and just because they are the first person with their surname. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 20:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the article is well-written and namespace is cheap in that neighbourhood. - TB 13:01, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Weak keep, on TB's reasoning. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on RiffSyphon's reasoning. Remember that Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Radiant! 12:25, Feb 28, 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. --Rhobite 22:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lightspeed Systems

Poorly written article on content filtering software Longhair 07:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, Delete. Android79 17:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiability established - David Gerard 15:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• There might be a valid article to be had on this topic, but this isn't it. Delete unless significantly improved, this is below zero level. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to noogie. —Korath (Talk) 00:13, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noogies

Noogies are generally a childish torture technique. It involves getting the victim in a headlock or otherwise restraining her, and grinding your knuckles into her scalp. Dicdef. -- Hoary 08:49, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Redirect to Noogie Kappa 08:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to Noogie — J3ff 09:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. — RJH 20:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above above. --InShaneee 21:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Seems clear-cut to me. - RedWordSmith 21:31, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete for patent nonsense and recreation. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cabbage Hit

BJAODN- --Box of Rice 09:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN You beat me :) Preisler 09:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No, just delete. User:Box of Rice, if you think that this is BJAODN, why did you write it in the first place? And why did you remove my {{delete}}? -- Hoary 09:48, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• What the hell are you talking about? I never wrote it- just look in the history!, and what delete notice? You never put one up. stop ruining this for everyone. This is a vote, not a complaint centre. --Box of Rice 09:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I think something very odd has happened here. Some kind of edit conflict perhaps. But Box of Rice, the history says you created the page. Preisler 10:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The edit pattern shown by Special:Contributions/Box_of_Rice seems a little bizarre to me. What has happened here? -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 10:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
    • User:Box of Rice is under the illusion that he's a very witty fellow, and is subjecting us all to his wit. Some might call it vandalism. -- Hoary 10:17, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
      • I actually find it pretty amusing but nominating yourself to BJAODN is a little much so changing my vote to delete. Hoary don't let the vandals get to you. Preisler 10:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN well, I got a laugh out of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Article nominated for deletion by its own author and sole (apart from deletion taggers) editor. Speedy delete under criterion G7. Uncle G 14:04, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Speed deleted as silly vandalism. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The page has been resurrected. I have listed it for VfD again. 193.167.132.66 09:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to Knight Bus. (This had already been done.) —Korath (Talk) 00:20, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ernie Prang

Non-"notable" bus driver. The fact that it is a Harry Potter bus driver does not make it notable. It is fancruft, pure and simple. I expect this to get a load of keep votes but this will just prove that votes for deletion is a biased system and truly notable articles get deleted (Such as schools affecting the communities of tens of thousands people yet get deleted in favour of fancruft like this). Norman Rogers\^talk 09:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• He's "important". Merge somewhere or failing that, keep. I hope voters will come back and vote on other 'fancruft' which gets deleted because it has a less high profile than this. Kappa 09:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The bus driver on my local 310 bus is also "important", after all he will transport thousands of communters throughout his career, yet he does not get an article. Norman Rogers\^talk 10:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Your bus driver is unverifiable, and no-one would think to look for him in an encyclopedia. Kappa 11:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Anything Harry Potter is inherently notable. Being some of the most sold books ever and all. And schools are welcome. But not when the article consists only of its name and school district. Btw abusing the vfd to make a point? Come on.. Watch out for that wikistress :) Preisler 09:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So anything "Harry Potter", a load of fiction (fiction as in not real) is "inherently notable" while people argue that schools are not, despite affecting more people than Harry Potter bus driver? This is more systematic bias, where fiction has a low barrier of notabillity. Also, many of the Harry Potter articles are stubs, yet schools have to be high quality articles and have to face a big debate to be included. Which is more bias. Norman Rogers\^talk 10:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. Your logic is basically flawed. By your logic everything should be here. Every McDonalds outlet have several thousand customers a day and scores of employees, should they have a article each? Water wells service thousands of people all the time. Powerplants provide electricity for millions of people. Receptionist and call center people talk to hundreds of people every day. Should every telemarketer have their own page? They certainly come into contact with a lot of people. And so forth and so on. Every single one of the 6.500.000.000 people on earth comes into contact with all kinds of people and services (such as schools) every single day. What makes schools special? My high school certainly don't belong here. But that not might not have been my viewpoint when I was in school where it seemed much more important because it took up so much of my time. The Harry Potter books have sold 250.000.000 copies worldwide... Preisler 11:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My true point is not that my bus driver should have an article, but that fictional topics are given more space than "real" topics, in traditional encyclopedias it is the other way around. Of course the main characters such as Harry get and article, but the bus driver, which only a few fans cares about it not right. Replace fictional bus driver with "school" and you see the whole point. Minor fictioanl characters get articles while real, tangible entities do not. And you argument of 250 million copies does not hold. There is reams of fancruft for much less notable fiction, just look around, and it shows. The Geography of Madagascar, the forth largest island in the world is a stub, while Middle-earth, a fictional land is a featured article. The bias of notabillity of real and fictional objects is absurd. If fictional bus drivers who are minor characters are allowed articles, then so should secondary schools, shopping centres, stadiums, roads and more. Another thing, a group of notorius internet trolls known as the GNAA ha successfully managed to beat the VFD system, because they were trolling enough to make themselves "notable". VFD is broken, this article will be kept, another school will be deleted and more and more fancruft will pile up. Norman Rogers\^talk 13:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The reason for inclusion is not the reality of topics, but the notability thereof. Since there are more people who have read Harry Potter books than people who know your bus driver, the former is more notable. That the Geography of Madagascar is currently a stub is unfortunate but not relevant since everyone agrees it should be expanded. Radiant! 13:35, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Geography of Madagascar is a stub is relevent. People have been working too hard on fictional topics rather than real topics, therefore giving them a false sense of notabillity. Listen to people like Xed. He has been complaining for ages about this. More people need to stop working on fictional trivia and work on the important topics. People fighting the current bias are having an up hill battle. Once you start working in the real world topics you reailize wow big the world is. We have 746,163 articles in Wikipedia, but we have the potential to cover a lot more. Notabillity is still a POV idea, and fictional topics have artifiial notabillity. Think about it, the fictional work is heavily marketed, gobbled up by fans and gives an artifical sense of notabillity. That is the complaint. Fictional objects have a notabillity bias. The same thing applies to Internet-based phenomina. Many of these things are traditionally non-notable, but are "notable" becase of the medium the spread through, therefore bias. Norman Rogers\^talk 13:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Being somewhat of a deletionist there's nothing I would love more than to see some of all those pokemon or digimon or whatever articles disappear.. And you're right, it is sad that articles like Mother Teresa or Atheism or all the fancruft gets so many man hours of work and energy while articles of a, lets face it, more befitting nature to a encyclopedia as the geography of madagascar remains stubs. But I don't think there's any hope of that ever changing as long as the demographic of Wikipedia is as it is. Fighting the bias might be something of a Sisyphus task.. But those pages just containing minimal information on the school still bug me alot. These Harry Potter stubs should probably be gathered together and, because we can't shoot them, collected in Minor Characters of Harry Potter or something like that.Preisler 14:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I meant by 'not relevant', is that the argument that an article should be kept because a given worse article exist, or that an article should be deleted because a given better article does not exist (or is a stub) is invalid. This is because those arguments can be equally applied to any article. Consensus has already been established that not everything should be in wikipedia, thus an argument that is equally usable to support every article, must therefore be invalid. I concur with Preisler, too. Radiant! 15:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with some other page of collected harrypottercruft. / u p p l a n d 10:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is unlikely to evolve beyond a stub unless he ends up having a larger role in the next two books. I vote Merge if we have an article on obscure Potterverse characters. If not, then go ahead and Keep it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge unto something like Minor characters in Harry Potter. Radiant! 13:35, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Sure, he's notable by association, but giving him an entire article is a bit over the top. Especially, when there's really not that much to say about him. Articles should carry some info. Merge into List of minor characters in Harry Potter. He can still have his own article if he turns out more important, or if the article gets significant expansion. Mgm|^(talk) 14:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sub-trivia. Serves no valid encyclopedic purpose. Almost anything is more suitable for an encyclopedia article than this. I agree with Preisler that the existence of such articles as this does make it seem like an uphill battle to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia instead of a compilation of miscelleanous articles about whatever people take the fancy to write about. --BM 16:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subtrivial fancruft. Everything in Harry Potter is notable? What a joke. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Knight Bus or somewhere appropriate. Do not delete. Gamaliel 17:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Knight Bus already mentions both the driver and the conductor, which is practically all there is to say on the subject. --BM 18:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Delete. Fancruft is getting out of hand. We now have a full article for every character from every fantasy novel ever written, as well as anyone who has ever appeared in cartoon form, but notable subjects like Charles Darnay, Fitzwilliam Darcy, Mr. Rochester, George Babbitt, Captain Ahab, and Simon Legree have no articles (the blue links are redirects). If someone wants to kill the absolutely useless template, trim to a sentence or two, and merge to some Harry Potter page (I think we have one or two), I could live with that. (My comments are basically identical for the other bus driver listed below.) -R. fiend 20:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I mostly agree; book-related articles are fine, but minor characters such as the bus drivers are not deserving of their own articles. Radiant! 09:50, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Knight Bus. Megan1967 00:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete secondary character at best - Skysmith 09:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, then Delete. This character isn't significant enough even for a redirect. DaveTheRed 22:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 08:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. RadicalSubversiv E 13:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Knight Bus, which already says all there is to say. (Note: Redirecting discourages recreation of the same article.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Knight Bus. Redirect is cheap and tends to prevent future re-creation. Yes, actually, I do think that pretty much everything in the most popular English-language children's book series in history is inherently at least notable enough for a redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sdmlanreview

Advertisement spam, not notable. I would recommend deletion. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 09:45, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Delete - no notability established Egil 16:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity, delete - TB 13:15, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Delete -- vanity. Longhair 14:39, 25 Feb 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) 18:24, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Larry the Noodle Maker

A Google search for "Larry Wong" "Hong Kong" (noodle OR noodles) gave only this very marginal hit: [7]. Seems non-notable, and completely unverifiable. The page author seems to be User:Box of Rice, whose other contributions include Cabbage Hit and Hamburger of Truth, both of which are also on VfD and by the likes of it will soon be on BJAODN. I would recommend deletion. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 09:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Delete. No, it won't be on BJAODN, because the author wants it there. (He seems to crave attention.) -- Hoary 10:06, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes I must agree with User:Hoary. I nominated this for VfD and was about to move to Cabbage Hit, which I found already nominated by the author himself. I did think that it might be some unusual edit conflict at first due to his denying creating that article, but now it does seem to be attention-craving. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 10:14, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Hey! You cant brainwash people into making the vote that you want! --Box of Rice 10:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And also- someone PLEASE EXPAIN what is wrong with this article? Its a nirmal article about the sturrgles of a noodle maker. --Box of Rice 10:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unverifiable, possible hoax. I don't think that "Larry" is really a very common name among Hong Kong natives. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. Advert masquerading as an article. jni 14:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The contribution history, the article content, and the discussion contributions, lead me to believe that this is silly vandalism. Speedy delete under criterion G3. Uncle G 15:14, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Speed deleted as silly vandalism. The image was copied from a photographer's web site [8] where it bears the caption A chef at a Chinatown restaurant in Washington DC makes noodles the old fashion way...by hand ! So much for Larry the noodle maker in Hong Kong. I've deleted the image as well. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Tubb

NPOV, and unencyclopedic. I've googled Tubb's name and came up with exactly zero results. Overall the page reads like a "Wanted Dead or Alive" poster.*Kat* 12:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Probably one of his student creating a hoax. Delete unless verified by references. Thue | talk 12:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "like stealing sweats from a baby" ... eww! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think it should be a speedy delete as it may be insulting or offensive to real people and is manifest nonsense especially when taken with the other two. Dabbler 15:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) I still vote to Delete despite Uncle G's sterling research. Neither of the two are in any meaningful sense notable or encyclopedic.Dabbler 15:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possible hoax or personal attack. Megan1967 00:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I can verify this with references. So I have. And just to make your lives more interesting, I've Rewritten the article as a type 1 disambiguation page between the original Kevin Tubb and a (slightly) more notable one that I found from my Google search. Uncle G 13:52, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Byng

This looks like a hoax to me. Should be deleted unless backed up by references. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kevin Tubb. Thue | talk 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• delete: If this isn't a hoax, Kevin Tubb isn't a hoax either. Even if it isn't a hoax, it doesn't belong in WP anyway.*Kat* 12:25, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I thought it should be a speedy delete it is manifest nonsense and possibly intebnded to embarrass or offend real people. Dabbler 15:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possible hoax or personal attack. Megan1967 00:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Jim Byng is Business and Enterprise Director at Hamstead Hall School, Birmingham. [9] There is apparently nothing more of note to be said about him, and there is no-one more notable by that name for a rewrite. And this article is an attack page. Delete. Uncle G 13:06, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Midworth

Looks like a hoax, see also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kevin Tubb and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jim Byng by the same contributor. Thue | talk 12:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I think it should be a speedy delete as it m,ay be insulting or offensive to real people and is manifest nonsense when taken with the other two. Dabbler 15:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish notability, possible hoax. Megan1967 00:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Possible attack on real, non-notable people. -- RHaworth 07:16, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• Ah. These must be the pupils who wrote the attack articles about their Business Studies teachers. I was hoping to rescue this as an article about a place or some such. I turned up a footballer named Midworth, a neologism "mid-worth", and a street. But I couldn't find any rewrite fodder. Delete. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 18:24, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inglis's law of "I am conscious of the fact that im conscious of the time

No google hits for "Inglis' law" or "Inglis's law", seems like something the contributor has just made up. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 12:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Joke/patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. jni 14:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever. Delete. Radiant! 14:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted. Joke by a lecturer put here by one of their students I guess, using an IP with a history of reverted vandalism and a sum total of one trivial unreverted edit. Total content This law states that the time available is proportional to the feeling of consciousness, and as time decreases consciousness rises in a proportional manner thus leading to the use of a OHP, no meaningful context, CSD case #1. Andrewa 15:02, 21 Feb 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) 18:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jan haapala

Should Jan haapala be deleted? 193.167.132.66 13:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Not notable --Henrygb 13:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a vanity article of a non-notable person. Almost devoid of content. 193.167.132.66 13:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Thue | talk 13:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to speedy it, content was: Jan Haapala was born in 1982 in Nacka, Sweden. He's famouse for singing "Horungar!" whenever he's drunk. jni 13:47, 21 Feb 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) 18:29, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internal communication

Cross between bureaucratese jargon, and a dicdef. Radiant! 13:50, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but a complete rewrite is necessary and the title needs to be changed to Internal Communications. Internal Communications is a fast-growing professional field and indicative of a move by big corporations to improve top-down contact between management and employees. It's an important subject and worthy of an article. But the current contents need to be revised considerably. 23skidoo 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite and expand. Megan1967 00:26, 23 Feb 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) 00:24, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ismet horo

Non-English stub, looks Slavic to me. Can someone who understands it please explain what it means, and if it's encyclopedic? Radiant! 13:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• I added the 'not english' tag. I wouldn't recommend deleting anything that we don't even know what it is. --InShaneee 21:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears to be a non notable political satire film from a Bosnian comedian called Bosanski. Megan1967 00:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: No, Ismet Horo is the name of a Bosnian comedian or writer. Googling, I found a reference to him in German somewhere, but not enough to use for anything. He may well be notable in Bosnia, but I abstain. / u p p l a n d 09:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, appears well notable (within the right circles), has about 1800 Google hits, has produced several CDs and appears to be a singer and comedian. Page needs moving, stubifying and expanding, but not deletion Refdoc 23:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a notable enough person, getting a variety of google hits (considering how un-internetted Bosnia is, that's pretty good). Someone has kindly translated the text into english. -- John Fader 01:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but should give references. Expand, in any case. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:55, 26 Feb 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) 18:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intruder in the Dust

Book review. Very POV. If the book is considered notable, I still think the current article should be deleted to make place for a better one. Radiant! 13:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite from scratch. Amazon says William Faulkner wrote it, which I'd say makes notability. --InShaneee 21:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not the appropriate outlet for articles that need cleanup. Please see Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. ElBenevolente 01:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not dispute the worthiness of the subject, but I believe the current article should be deleted because in this case it would be better to start a new article from scratch than to modify the existing article. Radiant! 09:03, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Radiant!. And I disagree with those who say VfD should not be cleanup. In extreme examples, like this one, where the submission is simply garbage, it is perfectly reasonable to nominate it for VfD and hope that someone will bother to turn it into a decent stub. Cleanup should be for articles that need improvement, not for garbage that is not an article at all. I think "delete and list as a requested article" is a disposition that we ought to use more often. The advantage is that a requested article does not exist until someone is actually ready to write it, whereas articles marked for cleanup remain visible. This is good for articles that are better than nothing or that contain salvageable material, but is bad for articles that are worse than nothing and contain nothing salvageable. I'm glad that the issue is moot for this particular article. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have changed this article into a literary stub referencing the Faulkner book and the MGM film based on it. It is clearly a notable book which should be expanded in due course. I would have done more but will have other commitments over the next few days. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it has now been rewritten. Average Earthman 10:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. This book is definitely notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ipaska

Company vanity with extensive external links. Less than a thousand google hits is very poor for an 'international web services company'. Not notable. Radiant! 14:02, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Probably vanity. Delete unless author finds a third-party reference for verifiability - David Gerard 15:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising, not noteworthy by any means --161.184.205.70 20:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) updated for standard formatting and logged in --Fittysix 22:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete. The page should be replaced with a warning, since this man is a known scammer, and is fraudulently operating within the US.
  • unsigned comment by anon user:66.119.33.184
  • If you can demonstrate that, from citable sources, that would probably make this notable enough to keep. Otherwise, delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• My first thought was to move this to user:Paska's page but I notice that this article is his/her only contribution. Delete as vanity. Rossami (talk) 06:27, 24 Feb 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) 18:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Dow

Vanity, deleted 3 times but recreated again. Hopefully putting it on vfd will give him the idea. Thue | talk 14:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Creator blanked the page. I think he got the idea. Delete - teenage vanity mixed with a liberal dose of nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Pure drivel. Block the idiot if he continues to vandalize. jni 14:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy? Drivel, nonsense, crap, not here please -- Longhair 15:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied - the creator blanked it. Thue | talk 16:49, 21 Feb 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) 18:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toy camera

A VfD which was listed incorrectly at 17:17 4 Jan 2005. I've corrected and listed it again. Originally submitted by Cacophony. -- Longhair 15:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Toy cameras are for real, and there are artists who use them to create art. Fg2 10:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Shanes 10:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• A google search turning up over 153,000 matches for this subject would suggest a strong keep. What is the reasoning for this nomination again? GRider\^talk 18:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. I relisted what was otherwise already nominated. The article has improved quite a lot since it was relisted. -- Longhair 13:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 00:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, fine article now and properly titled. - TB 13:20, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Keep - I didn't vote :)~ -- Longhair 13:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a bit, and added some links and a photo. Fg2 01:25, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:12, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

A mission statement. Article does not establish notability and is unencyclopedic. Delete. jni 15:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No value as is. -- Egil 16:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite or delete, currently not an encyclopedic article. Thue | talk 17:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio from [10]. I just realized that the article Asian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, to which I have contributed some editing, also originates as a copyvio from the same source: [11] The organization as such and the journal are both probably notable enough, though. / u p p l a n d 09:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There is also a duplicate of this article under name AsianAOMS. Someone has already submitted it to WP:CP. jni 11:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Necessary improvements have been made and in the interest of helping improve and enhance the standard of oral and maxillofacial surgery in the region please do not delete the page. The page was created by staff of Scientific communications International Limited who is the copyright owner of http://www.AsianAOMS.org

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 00:32, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Félag íslenskra þjóðernissinna

It's a group of Icelandic nationalists, with less than a hundred members according to its own description. Approx 100 google hits. Notable or not able? Radiant! 15:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Icelandic_nationalism as necessary, then redirect. -- Egil 16:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 00:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 100 members is big relative to the population of Iceland. Psychonaut 02:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Either keep or merge and redirect to Icelandic_nationalism; seems about equal. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 18:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial womb

Substub. Poorly written. Alex.tan 15:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Just about enough information to be useful. Kappa 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) On second thoughts, it's not useful, but a valid topic. Looks like some people are actually working on these things [12] Kappa 16:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I did a quick rewrite, and turned the article into (hopefully) a useful stub. --Plek 20:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. @ Megan1967 22:41, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment some good work by Plek. I've fleshed out the article more with a mention of use of uterine tanks. Megan1967 05:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Plek and Megan. Capitalistroadster 10:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, fine article. - TB 13:25, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff_Tweiten

Delete I don't think camping out in front of a theater is truly notworthy. Mind you, I'm a Star Wars fan and would love to be the first one to get a ticket. However, this fellow's alleged noteworthiness is derived from one grandstanding event. --BenWilson 15:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but with reservations. Seems to have appeared in a fair number of news items. Megan1967 00:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • But, all news articles point to the same event. We're not talking about Gavrilo_Princip, but a fellow who staged a publicity stunt. Are we to make notable anybody who appears in the news?
• Delete unless significant notability is established by the article. Gamaliel 00:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, he's had his fifteen minutes of fame, but that's what most people get and that's not noteworthy enough for WP. Radiant! 09:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from Wikipedia. (Would this be appropriate to transwiki to WikiNews?) Rossami (talk) 06:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not of encyclopedic notability if this is his only claim to fame. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:10, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freecoolin

Vanity page. Recommend delete. --Milkmandan 16:29, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Delete, Not notable. Inter 19:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, school vanity. Megan1967 22:39, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable. Longhair 13:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to Knight Bus. —Korath (Talk) 00:40, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Shunpike

Harry Potter minor character, the conductor on a bus with whom Harry converses briefly. Sub-trivia. Delete. -BM 16:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge somewhere or keep. Harry Potter characters are Wikipedia:important. Kappa 16:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into something like Minor characters in the Harry Potter series. Radiant! 18:13, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. Why do we need a list of minor characters from any books? Inter 19:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. Because people look them up.
  2. Because the nature of Wikipedia is such that if we delete it, someone will just recreate it.
  3. Because having things like this is actually likely to draw kids into being interested in Wikipedia, and they may go on to actually learn something. Probably merge and redirect, but don't lose this entirely. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Knight Bus or something similar. Do not delete. Gamaliel 19:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft is getting out of hand. We now have a full article for every character from every fantasy novel ever written, as well as anyone who has ever appeared in cartoon form, but notable subjects like Charles Darnay, Fitzwilliam Darcy, Friar Tuck, George Babbitt, Captain Ahab, and Simon Legree have no articles (the blue links are redirects). If someone wants to kill the absolutely useless template, trim to a sentence or two, and merge to some Harry Potter page (I thinkwe have one or two), I could live with that. -R. fiend 20:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We may have an article for every fantasy novel character ever, but the same isn't true for sci-fi novels. I found no articles at all for any Star Trek book character that doesn't appear on the actual show. This seems like a mismatch in proportion. 193.167.132.66 12:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • All things considered, a dearth of Star Trek character articles is not a high concern for me. -R. fiend 22:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • What is the general opinion on Star Trek book characters that don't appear on the actual show? I'm only talking about major book characters like Captain David Gold or Commander Gilaad ben Zoma, not every ensign whose name was mentioned once in some book and then never heard of again. Do they deserve articles? 193.167.132.66 07:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Knight Bus article. Stan Shunpike is a minor character, primarily written about in the second book and only briefly mentioned in the fourth. However, due to the fact that the Knight Bus was essential for Harry Potter to get to school in the second year, it is important to give him mention in another article. --Tezeti 21:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Knight Bus, and add redirect. Megan1967 23:57, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete secondary character at best- Skysmith 09:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor character, does not feature separate from the Knight Bus in Harry Potter, which is a granular enough level of detail on its own. Average Earthman 10:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Knight Bus unless expanded. Do not delete. After all, since it is significant enough to be cast in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, it is significant enough to keep.Andrew pmk 19:41, 27 Feb 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) 19:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Hoerner

Unverifiable vanity or hoax. Which is it? GRider\^talk 19:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Neither. Actual person, actual book, but person is more notable for being guitarist for Sunny Day Real Estate. Article improved a bit. Gamaliel 20:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable author of a non-notable book, disturbing or not. -R. fiend 20:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote at present. It seems this article is short enough that everything here could be included at Sunny Day Real Estate. -R. fiend 14:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even besides the book, Sunny Day Real Estate members would be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• PS: I have to ask: how would this be "unverifiable" exactly? I fully understand that many people haven't heard of this person, but it takes a second or two to verify on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear here, have you verified that this is the same Dan Hoerner? I may withdraw my vote if its true and if the article is expanded to establish notability. If all this guy did was write one childrens book which got me a few dozen google hits then I will stay with delete. -R. fiend 21:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Same guy: [15] Gamaliel 21:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possible self-promotion/vanity. Megan1967 22:38, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Sunny Day Real Estate Kappa 02:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with SDRE. Radiant! 09:10, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If my rotten computer hadn't twice crashed on me tonight, I would have rewritten this article. The Sunny Day Real Estate web page confirms him as the author of the book. He recorded an EP with Dashboard Confessional in 2001 see [16].

He has also recorded a soundtrack. Capitalistroadster 09:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable.--Centauri 12:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion:block compress error. Joyous 17:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dagoberto Flores Rios

Is this Colombian gang member notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? He receives one hit on Google, [17] does he still pass "the test"? GRider\^talk 19:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete just not notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:49, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, apparently head figure of major cartel. Kappa 02:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No, he's one of the head figures. And just like managers of most companies aren't that notable, neither is this guy. Delete. Radiant! 09:11, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 15:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless notability is established beyond being one of a group of people involved in a notable organization. -R. fiend 21:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. RickK 00:57, Feb 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 KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 19:08, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Anderson

Gay spam-stub or noteworthy and encyclopedic information? Which is it? GRider\^talk 20:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep published author. At first I suspected this might be an attack page based on the content, but according to Google and Amazon, he's real. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:25, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep His name is pretty common, so, searching it on google would get many unrelated references, but his book, "Sex Tips for Gay Guys" has 12,200 hits. Bogdan | Talk 20:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Appears notable. Megan1967 23:48, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable.--Centauri 12:29, 23 Feb 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) 19:09, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Sanders

Geek-cruft or encyclopedic information? Are all fellows of the Royal Society considered to be inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? If so, why? If not, what about this article establishes personal notability for this figure and why should this information be kept? GRider\^talk 20:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Google reveals that he also takes lovely underwater photos and was crowned Miss Teen of the Nation in 2002! Ok, ok, those are probably other people, but I'd say this guy is notable anyway. He's been published quite a bit, see http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/biol/staff/sanders/webc.htm Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:37, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, he does have a number of publications in good peer reviewed journals. Its actually pretty hard to get in to the Royal Society, so I'd say that most members are probably notable at least for their academic pursuits--nixie 22:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. @ Megan1967 23:43, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep members of the Royal Society, since it's hard to get in. Kappa 02:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable biologist. As well as being a member of the Royal Society, he also appears to be members of several editorial boards for peer-reviewed journals. Capitalistroadster 10:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletioncruft VFD nomination.--Centauri 12:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Good term. Wincoote 23:53, 24 Feb 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) 00:56, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Crippen

Google turns up 596 unique matches for this individual. [18] Resume-cruft, or "encyclopedic" information? GRider\^talk 20:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 23:39, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, public servant-cruft?--nixie 00:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sounds plenty notable. Kappa 02:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Member of some government groups, but then so are many people, he doesn't appear to have done anything very special with his membership. Unless notability is further established than this article and a couple hundred google matches, delete. Radiant! 09:11, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Based on the evidence available, he does not quite seem to meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Delete unless further evidence is presented. Rossami (talk) 00:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, 4 years as director of CBO seems notable enough. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The CBO is a lot more notable than it sounds, as is its director. Gamaliel 05:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This guy is one of the top contenders for the job of NASA Administrator (as indicated by NASAWatch). Hektor

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion: block compress error. Joyous 17:05, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Lue

Does being the least popular contestant on an American reality TV show somehow make you encyclopedic? Or are all participants on such a television show simply inherently noteworthy? Will people really being using Wikipedia to research this information 10 years from now? ...20? ...50? Ever? GRider\^talk 20:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete reality show contestant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 23:36, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The problem with things like this is that some reality show people are notable and some are not, and drawing the line can be difficult. Winners of the major reality shows I think would pass, but then there are people like Omarosa, Puck (The Real World), Rudy from the first Survivor, and, of course William Hung. Hung got a recording contract (somehow), so that separates him from the flock, but others are simply just more famous or infamous than most, and it's hard to quantify that. This case I think will have to be a delete, because I really see nothing here. I guess part of the question is is this guy actively unpopular? Or does he just lack popularity? If he lacks popularity simply because no one cares then it's a clear delete, if he's reviled it might be a different story. -R. fiend 02:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge with the show or keep. Can't describe a show properly without describing its contestants. Kappa 02:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with R.Fiend - Delete Radiant! 13:09, Feb 23, 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. The page is pending deletion with a block compress error. Joyous 17:00, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DEECEE

Is this Slavic house DJ notable? 16 hits. [19] Is the "Google test" an unfair metric of notability in this instance? If so, why? Discuss amongst yourselves. GRider\^talk 20:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:34, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without third-party verifiability - David Gerard 15:06, 23 Feb 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.

I count five deletes, two redirects, one merge, and five keeps. Noting that the Encyclopædia Britannica article already contains the whole of the information in Dale Hoiberg save for the word "sinologist", I am going to exercise my judgment as an ordinary editor and merge and redirect. —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Hoiberg

This sub-stub reads, "Dale Hoiberg is a sinologist and, as of 2004, the editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica." In this case, how is notability being established, if at all? Is Wikipedia better off with or without these types of "articles"? GRider\^talk 20:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't seem to have an article on him, why should we? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We seem to have an article on his counterpart at another semi-notable encyclopedia, Jimmy Wales. --BM 21:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Hoiberg certainly didn't found Britannica, he's just its (current?) editor-in-chief. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Try Larry Sanger, former editor-in-chief of Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 13:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability - 180 Google hits. Megan1967 23:23, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep editors of semi-notable encyclopedias. Kappa 02:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Editors of extremely influential encyclopaediae should be included! Just because they critique us doesn't mean we should forswear to write about them!
  • Unsigned by 141.225.193.124. —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the Britannica. Radiant! 09:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletioncruft VFD nomination.--Centauri 12:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Encyclopædia Britannica article. This is a prime example of a predicate nominative. In other words, someone researching this guy probably already knows what he does. This substub isn't much help as it is. - Lucky 6.9 02:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We would not keep a business-person with equivalent responsibilities and no other evidence of notability. Rossami (talk) 00:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 08:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the EB article. — Matt Crypto 13:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Current article is pretty useless, but almost certainly has potential. No, EB themselves don't have an article on him: this is precisely the sort of thing where their narrower criteria say no. But certainly more notable than 1/3 of what has articles in Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Darwinek 13:09, 4 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. The page is pending deletion with a block compress error. Joyous 17:00, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dag Ågren

Blatant Vanity? What makes this contributor to Finnish and Swedish web forums so important that he should be included? GRider\^talk 20:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, I wrote none of this myself. Also, I've never contributed to any Finnish and Swedish web forums, so I'm not sure what that's about. --130.232.85.15 13:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete message-board member. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:19, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. / u p p l a n d 09:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I know who this is but he isn't notable. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 09:02, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 19:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Mabry

This person is the son of a former Supreme Court Justice. Is any of this information verifiable? A better question is why would an airfield or road be named after this person? GRider\^talk 20:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable Floridian. Gamaliel 20:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why keep Dale Mabry but delete Dan Reed Olsen Jr.? What accomplishments did this fellow make which illustrate such notability? GRider\^talk 21:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Dan Reed Olsen Jr. is a clear cut case of vanity, given that it was created by User:Danolsen and an edit summary says "this is my father and for a class we are supposed to write an article someone we know that has made contributions in their field." Even without this, he doesn't pass the average professor test for me. Gamaliel 21:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm working on expanding Mabry's article to further establish him as a notable figure in Florida. Gamaliel 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 23:17, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He seems to have been an airship pilot who died when his airship died in World War I. Apart from the road, an air base and school were named after him. Capitalistroadster 10:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a major road is named after him, so someone thought him notable enough. --SPUI (talk) 00:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with the road if he's not notable for anything else. Kappa 02:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable.--Centauri 12:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mabry is an important part of Tampa history. Mike H 12:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:00, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Crowley

Is this a joke, or vanity? Surely not all Bostom Marathon runners from Ireland are noteworthy? GRider\^talk 20:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article does not establish notability. RickK 21:34, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 50 Google hits ("Daniel Crowley" + "marathon"). Megan1967 23:07, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-LtNOWIS 02:12, 23 Feb 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) 01:20, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Wershler-Henry

Vanity? Canada-cruft? With 313 unique hits on google (see page 32) [22], does this poet pass the Pokémon Comparative Notability Test? GRider\^talk 21:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 23:03, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article makes him sound notable enough. Kappa 02:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Spinboy 05:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 06:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Granted he's not one of the superstars of Canadian literature, but he most certainly is a significant figure. It took me all of nine seconds to confirm that he's a frequent contributor to This Magazine, which is among that rare class of magazines in which getting published is in and of itself sufficient grounds to deem someone notable (cf. Harper's, Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker.) Being managing editor of Coach House Press, a company whose small size belies its huge influence in CanLit, also qualifies, as does having edited the single most important and famous book of Canadian poetry published in at least the past decade. Oh, and just for the record, I get 51 pages of distinct Google hits, not 32. Bearcat 07:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• He fails the Pokemon test, but then again that's a rather strange criterium in the first place. Nevertheless, Keep but expand article with Bearcat's remarks. Radiant! 09:19, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in Canadian literature. Capitalistroadster 11:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable.--Centauri 12:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 14:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, eh? Notable. - Lucky 6.9 01:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Bearcat. -- James Teterenko (talk) 05:30, 4 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.