Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 25	February 27 >

[edit] February 26

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demon hunters

Keep	Delete
1	6

This is badly written, un-encyclopedic. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I speedied it once earlier. — Dan | Talk 02:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, looks like some stupid fan thing. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 08:08, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, poorly written. Relevant contents would probably exist under Demon or Exorcism. --Idont Havaname 18:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Incomprehensible rambling, ScottM 00:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete and send a heavily armed demon hunter after whoever wrote it! Miss Pippa 23:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. Andrew pmk 01:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - But Cleanup. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:55, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Michal Zalewski

Possible vanity page. Psychonaut 03:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment from me. Michal is better known by his nickname ("lcamtuf"). This returns 21k Google hits, almost all noteworthy.
Keep, 9700 Google hits ("Michal Zalewski" + "hacker"), notable enough for me. Megan1967 03:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Let's read just what it is that he's notable for, then. As it stands, the article doesn't tell me how he's notable (incidentally, another VfD tells us that his book isn't actually published yet), though it does suggest that he might be. -- Hoary 04:54, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
- Then I would suggest expanding the article to include more details. Megan1967 06:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Clusty digs up some relevant looking hits as well. Keep and expand. Mgm|^(talk) 22:21, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
A well-known computer security researcher. Keep. cesarb 23:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A number of google hits on major computer-related websites and a mention on a book publisher's site. Authors are notable.—Brim 16:58, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silence on the Wire

Article on a book that hasn't even been published yet. In my observation, most unpublished books that end up on VfD are deleted; a book can't generally be considered notable until it's had a chance to be read and receives a reaction from the public. Psychonaut 03:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Michal Zalewski if he survives Vfd, then split out if its successful. Books by notable authors are automatically encyclopedic material, regardless of quality/reception. Kappa 10:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Michal Zalewski as suggested by Kappa. Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Michal Zalewski. Megan1967 05:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season

This information is already available in the Hurricane article and is not needed in a duplicate article. Furthermore, the 2007 hurricane season won't begin for another two and a half years. Arkyan 04:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 06:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete until 2006 - unnecessary placeholder of little to no value. I delinked years far in the future on the existing articles to try to prevent this one from being created, but apparently the author decided to type it into the search box manually. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Same opinions as above. Nick04 19:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, placeholder, nothing that can't be included in Hurricane. Mgm|^(talk) 22:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I think it was posted for the sake of the author getting to it first, and not just for information. --Kitch 06:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for now as premature - however the idea of an article listing approved hurricane names for upcoming seasons might be of interest, though it's probably better to roll that information into the various year articles (i.e. 2007, etc.) alongside astronomical predictions. 23skidoo 06:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We already have Lists of tropical cyclone names. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nephilim Plasma Weapon

The Nephilim PLASMA SUPERWEAPON is basically a large Plasma Cannon installed on thier KRAKEN-class Capital Ship Killers and TIAMAT-dreadnaughts. Et cetera et cetera. Appears to be fancruft of some genre or other. -- Hoary 04:43, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

~~This PLASMA SUPERWEAPON would probably make part of a great sci-fi novel on Wikibooks.~~ After reviewing what links to it more extensively, my opinion is that it should be merged; I do not see this article expanding like other "weapon"/"ship" articles on the same topic. Merge; delete this article. Tygar 07:49, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
merge with what links to it or keep. Kappa 09:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. A quick google search for "nephilim plasma" and "T.C.S. Midway" seems to indicate this relates to Wing Commander. Let knowledgeable fans decide how important it is. Phils 16:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but given that 'nephilim' has lots of other meanings outside Wing Commander, it should probably be merged with something like 'spaceships in WC' or 'weapons in WC'. Radiant! 17:58, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
WILE E HERESIARCH is a Wikipedia editor equipped with GAMMA BURSTER RAILGUNS and a FONDNESS FOR TOAST AND TEA. He was created early in the history of the cosmos, circa 1970 AD, by two scientists who were experimenting with GENETIC RECOMBINATION. Fancruft, delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge some of it into whatever fancruft topic this is a subset of, then redirect (and perhaps someday merge that page into whatever it is a subset of, until we have fancruft like this confined into a somewhat sane form. Someday). -R. fiend 19:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unwikified fancruft of some kind. Jonathunder 22:13, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Delete. Look at the wookiee. —Neuropedia 23:38, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Delete. Wing Commander fan that I am, this is not Wikiworthy, which can be said for alot of the Wing Command related articles. ScottM 00:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. BTW why is all fancruft so badly written? Miss Pippa
You got me. Delete for reasons stated, but keep the Wile E. cruft. Oh, and pass the tea, would you? Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 00:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pajamahadeen

Neologism. Gamaliel 05:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: 16,500 Google hits [1]. Carrp | Talk 20:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no relevance outside a small conservative blogging community concerned with the 2004 US election, (its importance will be overstated by google since its related to blogs) --nixie 23:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It was widely used during the events that unrolled and while it was a joke in response to criticism from CBS--it has some merit as a reference in that it defines how the conservative bloggers viewed themselves and how they were viewed by CBS and its defenders. unsigned vote from 63.225.174.87
Delete, neologism. Jonathunder 22:10, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Probably should be merged with something. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. --LexCorp 03:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sure it's a neologism, but that doesn't mean it should be automatically deleted. The word has appeared in print and online media around the world so it's something that people could reasonably expect to look up in Wikipedia and the article gives much more than a dicdef. --Lee Hunter 12:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Even if this neologism disappears, somebody might want to know what it meant during its brief heyday. NathanV 14:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Because Wikipedia is not paper, it can afford to have things like this that people may have a hard time finding information about elsewhere. Aidje 18:27, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

[edit] Hume lake

One of many private religious summer youth camps. Nothing about it appears particularly notable. Delete. Jonathunder 05:58, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Keep, but only if the article begins with information about the geographical location, not just the camps (it is a lake in Sequoia National Forest, Fresno County, California, and an adjacent unincorporated area; not sure why Rambot didn't pick it up and create an automatic article; can also be redirected to Hume, California which is sufficiently notable to create). By the way, the correct title should probably be Hume Lake, California. Antandrus 06:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I added a lead paragraph. The rest of the article needs a touch of NPOVing. Oh, and try the Google test on Hume lake if you're still unsure. This place is pretty famous. Antandrus 06:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - OK, I gave it a POV-ectomy; see if that helps now. 419,000 Google hits isn't too shabby. 06:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, reads like a POV promo eg. "Lake Hume is a place that represents the truth of Jesus Christ in a magnified manner". Megan1967 06:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, at least as rewritten. Real place. Kappa 10:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep issues raised resolved. Wincoote 11:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep re-write (nice work on the new intro and POV-ectomy, Antandrus, BTW). And, yeah, if/when someone wants to write about the much smaller Hume Lake (Texas) (which gets hardly any hits even searching for "Hume Lake" texas), Hume Lake should become a disambig between the two. Oh, there's an Aussie 'Hume Lake' as well (only found with "Hume Lake" -california -christian -ministries -sequoia) that also could force a disamb page, but the MoS says to only disambig when necessary, and the only article linking here, John S. Eastwood, is, indeed, looking for the CA 'Hume Lake', so it's probably not necessary yet. And, I would argue that, if anything, Hume, California should, at least for the time being, redir to Hume Lake, as it appears that the 25 (at most--census data for ZIP 93628 covers a pretty big area) year-around households there are probably all to serve the lake's camps. Niteowlneils 12:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional research, and the map, N! It is looking like the village exists to serve the recreational facilities, so a redirect from Hume, California, or Hume Lake Village, California to Hume Lake may be best. Antandrus 15:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's a much better article now than when I submitted it for deletion, when it did not tell us where the camp is or why it is notable. Thanks to those who worked on it, I would now also vote to keep. Jonathunder 18:53, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Keep Judging from the history, it's a much better article now then it was earlier. Seems like a nice place :) Bratsche 03:28, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep newly POV-ectomied and expanded article. It's nothing short of a miraculous turnaround! - Lucky 6.9 01:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 06:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona Peyote Foundation

This particular group is not encyclopedically notable. Their only minor brush with fame so far has been getting busted for growing peyote in 1999 (and possibly later). I believe it also is now defunct. And as it stands, the article is little more than an advertisement for monetary assistance. "Memberships in The Peyote Foundation are available and encouraged, as are donations of time, labor, love and other resources. Please send in our membership/subscription page to show your support." Katefan0 06:06, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Self-promotion. -- Paul Richter 06:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion, essay. -- Hoary 07:08, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone can rewrite this self-promotion into a good encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 19:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Easy meat, get rid of it. —Neuropedia 23:40, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Keep, but rework in 3rd person so it's not "self"-promotion. There is an attempt (a red link) to connect with this article in the peyote article and so there seems to be a proper place for an article about this group. The group doesn't seem to be defunct... Someone is paying their internet site hosting fees and monthly bills. It is also of historical interest... I can see what I can do. Emyth 22:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intraspecific breeding

Intraspecific breeding is the act of breeding two varieties (variety_(biology)) of the same species. None of the examples are of the breeding of two varieties of the same species. Instead, they are of two species of the same genus. Rick K 07:44, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Author of article seems misunderstand the topic - just Google for "intraspecific breeding" (49 hits). You use word "intraspecific" for something occuring between one specific species, eg - competition between a pack of lions for mates. Nick04 20:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep but with rewrite and expansion (I'll place a draft copy up on the Talk page). @ Megan1967 01:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment I've corrected the article, probably needs more expansion. Megan1967 04:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs work but that's OK. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but it needs expansion --nixie 02:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Temptations of Jean-Claude Killy

Having nominated the article for deletion, I found that it had previously been speedily deleted on two occasions. However, the content now is very different, and I feel needs further debate. In fact, it is rather a well-written article, and far more than a stub. However, I don't feel that a single magazine article merits its own article, unless it has in some way been very influential, which this doesn't seem to have been. Deb 18:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I created the article based on an empty link directly from the Hunter Thompson page and what I thought was a need for it. Though not a particularly significant article it is indicative of Thompson's style. I also think that the relative importance of the article depends on where you're coming from. For Killy fans it probably means nothing, for Thompson followers the information is useful in locating the source and content of the original Scanlan's article, as well as giving some insights and context into Thompson's well-known sports addiction. Logan 5 19:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability, article recreation. Megan1967 02:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Jean-Claude Killy and link to him (rather than to the title) from Thompson. / u p p l a n d 03:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Uppland. Rossami (talk) 06:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The page doesn't establish why that particular article on Killy is noteable. Martg76 12:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. According to this article in Rolling Stone, "Thompson invented a whole new genre when a fellow journalist called his feature on the skier Jean-Claude Killy "gonzo." The piece was written for Playboy, which turned it down; it was published by a fellow maverick, San Franciscan Warren Hinckle. Thompson later said that his realization that he could "get away with" such an outrageous writing style convinced him to stop trying to write "like the New York Times. It was like falling down an elevator shaft and landing in a pool full of mermaids."
Merge and redirect per Uppland. Looking at the content and comments here I'd agree article is more appropriate for the Killy page than a stand-alone. Logan 5 16:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sprintwich

Non notable neologism that needs to be either deleted or transwikied to some cookbook if it is notable enough. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Google results only 1 result. Possibly, original research. Delete - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concur, delete. Radiant! 11:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism.--LexCorp 03:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mp3tunes

Procedural nomination. This article spent more than five days tagged for Speedy Deletion without any admin finding a case for it, or removing the tag as obviously inappropriate. I have replaced the Speedy tag with a VfD tag and am listing it accordingly. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Internet MP3 store that was founded two weeks ago. Obvious company advertisement, it even lists prices and stuff. Strong delete. Radiant! 12:02, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 16:09, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously an ad. Kbdank71 16:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Come back when you've got a good share of the market. --Idont Havaname 18:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Companies that are only a few weeks old are not ready to be included in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 19:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Can I vote?? --145.94.41.95 20:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, anonymous contributors may vote, but they may be ignored by the administrator who actions the decision, if he or she feels the vote was not made in good faith. Your vote would be more likely to be considered if you added your reasoning to it, rather than just saying "delete". —Stormie 13:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Michael Robertson, the founder of MP3.com, re-enters the music market after some years, using Linspire as a base to jump off of, and no one else thinks this is notable? And I find it doubtful that it's an ad. Should be redirected somewhere, at a minimum. - RedWordSmith 23:08, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
- The article as it stands fails to make reference to any of this. Delete as an ad as it currently stands, though a complete rewrite emphasizing who Robertson is and why we should care that he's started Mp3Tunes and elimination of any pricing information might make me change my mind. 23skidoo 06:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability, advertisement. Megan1967 01:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable subject, with work it can be despammed and be encyclopaedic. Or we could just ditch any mention of iTMS while we're at it. —Neuropedia 23:43, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup. Notable subject that needs to be reworked. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup. James F. (talk) 01:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and try using the Edit this page button next time. There for a reason. —RaD Man (talk) 04:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Questionable legality of the service a la Russia and looks like an advert. Delete would be easiest, but in the interest of expansion this entry could work if heavily deleted. Kenterlogic 4:044, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Needs a cleanup though unsigned vote by anon User:212.159.20.25
Delete Just an ad for a business someone started a couple of weeks ago. unsigned vote by User:LeeHunter
Keep, the fact that they have 300,000 songs by 22,000 artists appears to make them a major player, and the involvement of former mp3.com CEO Michael Robertson is also significant. —Stormie 13:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Club Alrek

Delete. Pretty unnotable small student's club that sold booze illegaly. Could possily be merged with Alrek Studenthjem, below. -- Egil 11:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Egil, delete. Radiant! 11:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alrek

Delete. Etymology for pretty unnotable small student's home. Could possily be merged with Alrek Studenthjem, below. -- Egil 11:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merely an etymology. Merge with Årstad, Norway, to which it seems to belong. Martg76 17:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point - I've made an attempt at that -- Egil 20:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Årstad, Norway. Megan1967 01:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alrek Studenthjem

Delete. Pretty unnotable small student's home. If the decision is to keep, then Alrek and Club Alrek needs to be merged with this one. -- Egil 11:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah. It's an building that consists of small apartments where students live. Not much else to say about it, so delete. Radiant! 14:29, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge with a section on student housing in the University of Bergen article. / u p p l a n d 12:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enjoi

Delete. Minimal informational value -- it's not as if it was commonly used in English. Deb 11:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not article worthy (too short, won't expand). Tygar 17:35, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Inter\^Echo 20:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Peslis

If there's no more to say about him, I think he should be deleted. Deb 11:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Being the husband of gospel singer is not inherently notable, and nothing further about him is mentioned. --BM 15:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Inter\^Echo 20:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Cody

Substub about some 15 year old kid, claims he is an architect. Delete. jni 15:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe in 10 years' time, who knows? :p Phils 15:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, author refers to 2014 as the past, so the whole article is probably untrue. If he has a degree at his age (interesting) can he source this? If he can I might change my mind. Otherwise totally unnotable. --SqueakBox 17:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Lets try this again in 2014. Tygar 17:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete ludicrous example of far-flung future predictions. I hope this is a joke, but who knows? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quite funny though. Put the "Works" section in BJAODN, and mention when the article was written. --Idont Havaname 18:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Zzyzx11 19:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rather pretentious...perhaps this kid would care to help me pick my lottery numbers next week? Nick04 19:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, I know it should be on here instead but for the love of sweet christ it should be a speedy. Inter\^Echo 20:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as future history. (He graduated college in 2014). Rick K 00:31, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future State

Short and contextless entry, author removed {{cleanup-context}}. Various versions of this have been speedily deleted several times, but the anon does not get the message. Delete. jni 15:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Being speedy'd before is a good reason for being speedy'd again. delete Radiant! 17:55, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason to crush it in the shredder either, the concept is interesting, although not very original, but therefore perfectly encyclopedic. Thus keep. --Pgreenfinch 07:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is a sentence fragment not a topic. Redirect to future. --Lee Hunter 12:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New literacy studies

The contents of this article should be merged with literacy and article deleted without redirection. --SqueakBox 16:54, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Concur, merge. Radiant! 17:58, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Literacy. Megan1967 02:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physical Immortalism

The contents of this page are already at immortality. Delete. --SqueakBox 17:00, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to immortality. Zzyzx11 19:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Immortalism? --InShaneee 19:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, rewrite and expand. @ Megan1967 01:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to immortality. Physical immortality section already exists on that page. --Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Merge and Redirect to Immortality, including list of references. — RJH 17:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- I'm afraid that some people in the wiki community are way too enthusiastic about deleting others' work. Really. --Christofurio 03:08, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, quite so. RJH
Keep -- Why delete?
Delete. This article isn't inmortal to me :) --Neigel von Teighen 18:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete redundant article. Is it an article on immortality in general or a specific group of people who want immortality? That isn't clear. There is no mention of Alchemical Taoism, perhaps the most famous historical group of people interested in physical immortality. If there is verifiable input as to the identity of a notable group who actually call themselves "physical immortalists" I will change my vote. Fire Star 04:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. (There does not appear to be anything to merge.) Current contents are not yet any larger than the same discussion in the main document. Keep them together until size forces the articles to split. Rossami (talk) 07:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect as per Rossami. Radiant! 11:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect. Unlike those physical immortals, the article won't live forever. Miss Pippa 23:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect (And then re-work some of the Immortality...) There is useful info in this article re: transhumanist and futurist interest in physical immortality that is NOT mentioned by the Immortality article. The Alchemical Taoist material should be incorporated as well. It seems to me that there are some not so subtle POV issues with the Immortality article that should and could be addressed if it were more like the shorter article in tone.Emyth 22:59, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William_W._Walter

non-notable, website advertisement DS 17:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless someone can provide more notable content. Zzyzx11 19:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 01:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of ethnic stereotypes

This isn't encyclopedic or neutral.
There is no way to verify most of the items listed.
Most of it is original research.
Many items are not really stereotypes: some of them are ethnic jokes and caricatures.
The last VfD vote had a 60 percent vote for delete. Neutrality^talk 17:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
- - I just realized that this is a recreation of an already deleted article (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes), and as such would probably qualify for speedy deletion. Radiant! 11:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
    - So please do it! ≈ jossi ≈ 04:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neutrality^talk 17:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
This re-nomination is sooner than I prefer, but if one actually reads the list, it is clear that it is NOT informative, as many line-items are not widely held, which means they are original research and/or unverifiable. Austrians "Annoy people by singing everywhere they go..."? Puh-leaze, I am in the US and I'm not aware of anyone who supports that view. Suggesting the list should be moved to 'US stereotypes' assigns the US even more of a small-mindedness than it deserves. Dutch "speak English better than British or Americans"? Sez whoo? Icelanders "...love to fight when intoxicated"? since when is that not true of a good percentage of any nationality? Native Americans "often live on reservations"--well duh, but is it by choice? WASP Americans "favor Gin & Tonics over other drinks, call them G&Ts"--my ancestors are all from the British Isles, except for one German and one Flemish, but give me vodka&7-up any day. And many have entries like "women have large breasts", "alcoholics", "smoke too much"--like any of these are really limited to certain nationalities/ethnicities, and to whatever extent it may be true isn't accurately represented in this list. Delete Niteowlneils 19:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Inherent POV, unverifiable, etc. Xezbeth 20:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I strongly supported deletion during the first VfD. I would like to see this useless and unverifiable article removed. Carrp | Talk 20:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Inherently POV, unsourced, unverifiable. --BM 20:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even after removing the many things on the list that are not stereotypes, if any of this information was accurate, useful or interesting, we would have seen at least some of it added to each ethnicy/nationality entry. While such a list may seem to have potential at first, I think the case against it is made more clear when one considers the prospect of having this information listed on each ethnicy/nationality entry. It seems to me that a vote to keep is a vote for including its contents on respective ethnic/nation entries. Please also consider the reasons why nothing on this list has its own entry. I agree with all reasons listed by Neutrality. --Paraphelion 21:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete I think there's an excellent article to be made on this topic, and it would be fascinating to learn where all these got started, how they're perpetuated, how accurate they are (if at all), backlash against them, etc. If it's just a context-free list though, it isn't really helping anybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - agreed, this subject just can't be treated well in a list form. CDC (talk) 04:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed w/ Neutrality. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete I support having a list of ethnic stereotypes, but only if it is sourced and the stereotypes are attributed to the people who hold them. As it is now, it's nothing worth keeping. Tuf-Kat 04:45, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agreeing with comments of Niteowlneils. Joyous 05:53, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A descriptive list of what stereotypes are out there is encyclopedic and maybe even useful. It is irrelevant whether we like them or not. However, the list should state where the respective prejudices are held. Martg76 09:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a case where that deleted {{garbage}} tag would have been suitable. / u p p l a n d 12:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even if an interesting list could be created on this subject this is not one. Jeltz talk 16:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This descriptive list of stereotypes is highly encyclopedic. Of course many of them are hateful. Shall we just put our heads in the sand and pretend that prejucice doesn't exist? Agree with Martg that the list should state where the respective prejudices are held. Can'tStandYa 14:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 22:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An article under this title could be very useful and scholarly; it could discuss the history of each stereotype, who holds or held it, and even what incidents it derives from. This article, by contrast, reads like a bunch of random surfers put it together... um, well, yes. That said, keep for now in the hopes that someone completely rewrites it; you never know, they might find the examples useful by way of a sort of skeletal framework. - Mustafaa 01:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm sure we can all agree this article is crap the way it is now. It's more important than usual to carefully verify everything so we make sure nobody's slipping in POV and original research, which is pretty easy to do with a list like this. It's a daunting task, but it's been done before. List of celebrities with links to the US Republican Party, a VfD survivor with somewhat similar POV and verifiability pitfalls, now has a source for every entry. While that article's not exactly feature quality, it's a good example of how articles headed for the VfD scrapheap can be saved. /sɪzlæk˺/ 02:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That list has one very important feature that this list lacks - items deserving of their own entries. Having said that, that list is still pretty poor. Have you looked at the references? One reference on some obscure blog or one mention of a donation is all it seems to take to label an actor as linked to the Republican party. That's a pretty useless list, to be used as nothing more than a rumormill. Respective articles on snopes.com would probably be more informative. This list has even less potential. --Paraphelion 09:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Wir muss nicht fergessen! Gott in Himmel! If the Germans aren't allowed to forget their sins, why should the rest of you be allowed to forget yours? This page needs a lot of work, but it hurts in all the right places. DocMengele 23:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Specatular double fallacy. You haven't shown that Germans aren't allowed to forget their sins. Even if that is true, the accountability is not a result of this list, therefore this list would not be substantial as far as whether or not other race's sins are allowed to be forgotten. By the way, what a lovely concept that you believe in, this 'sin of races'. --Paraphelion 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Current contents are unverified (and in my opinion, nonsense in many cases). If someone does find evidence documenting specifically who held each of these beliefs and under what circumstances, that content would be far better discussed either in the article about the ethnicity or the article about the bigot. This "list of" article conjoins topics that do not really relate to each other. Rossami (talk) 07:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An article written and titled like this is just asking for racist jokes to be added to it. Plus it's POV and not very verifiable. Radiant! 11:11, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
- - I just realized that this is a recreation of an already deleted article (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes), and as such would probably qualify for speedy deletion. Radiant! 11:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) -

The original article in question was never deleted. So your argument doesn't really hold any water. 155.84.57.253, 28 Feb 2005

Delete. If there's an encyclopedia article hiding in here, I can't find it. If there is something encyclopedic to be written on this topic, let someone start with a nice clean redlink. Discussion of stereotypes may well belong in the articles of the nationalities and ethnicities involved, though I'm concerned about the seven kinds of flamewar that's going to create. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, original research, un-verifiable, un-encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Disliking content is no reason to delete valid information. --Gene_poole 21:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article might be encyclopedic if it documented the stereotypes, analysed them, debunked them if necessary, examined their origins, etc. This doesn't, so it isn't. Miss Pippa 23:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. You have got to be kidding. An article ABOUT Ethnic stereotypes, sure, with well-chosen examples, but this? --Calton 00:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this article doesn't do what it should. --nixie 02:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Then edit it and keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 04:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and fast. Piece of garbage, inherent POV. An insult. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:14, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I do hope this gets deleted this time. Inherently NPOV and thoroughly unencyclopedic. Indrian 04:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
The article as it stands is junk. I don't think we would lose anything by deleting it. That said, I could imagine a well-researched, well-documented article on the topic. I'd be open to someone laying down the ground rules for such an article. Guess I'm pretty much with TenOfAllTrades on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, 34 separate "keep" votes clocked up in 19 minutes by The Recycling Troll! ~~, and this from a user who only registered yesterday!~~ Could this be the often-threatened Keepbot, that somebody has finally created? Why is wikipedia never fast enough for me to do stuff at that rate? Bishonen | Talk 23:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I think this user has been around longer than yesterday [2], however your suspicions are still quite understandable. --Paraphelion 00:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes, this user has been around for a few months, but most of its edits appear to be "Keep" votes on VfDs, rarely with any comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Sorry I misread the contribs, but, well, yeah! Bishonen | Talk 06:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The lists of ethnic slurs, political epithets, etc, are already enough work to keep editors busy. There is no purpose served by this article. -Willmcw 19:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
weak Keep. Reasons listed.-LtNOWIS 21:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, can we please finally get rid of this pernicious thing? Bishonen | Talk 23:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Antandrus 00:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research; I don't think a list like this has much hope of being anything but inherent POV. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 00:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Inherently POV topic. Kaibabsquirrel 02:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just like last time, only more so. Unlike the previous vfd survivor List of ethnic slurs, the information here has no merit. —Korath (Talk) 06:44, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that includes lists of definitions. Not that it's up for a vote now, but that really should have applied to List of ethnic slurs too. --iMb~Mw 09:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --taviso 11:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep, the article was already voted on and kept, propose speedy delisting. This is VfD vandalism at its best. Grue 11:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The result was not keep; there was no consensus. I count 24 deletes and 17 keeps (of various forms). Relisting is perfectly kosher. —Korath (Talk) 12:23, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - That's strange because there is "The result of the debate was KEEP" at the top of the old VfD page. That was the admin's decision, probably based on the fact that many of those who voted delete aren't familiar with the deletion policy (which doesn't list POV/lack of sources as the reason for deletion). Grue 12:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - It's a deletion policy, not a deletion rule. It rather sounds to me like you're unclear on the difference between policy and rule, and don't seem to understand that the deletion policy isn't some sort of constitution that VfD decisions are required to adhere to: what the VfD voters decide -- and how the admins interpret them -- is policy, no matter what legalistic rule-to-the-letter that Wikilawyers attempt. --Calton | Talk 07:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with User:Neutrality.-gadfium 19:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep: I can't see how this can be POV, when it's clearly stated in the article that these are stereotypes and not facts. A useful cultural record - of course, by no means complete or perfect.Drw25 23:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, mostly unverifiable junk, not encyclopedic. --Bjarki 15:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a nice cultural reference. And I can't find anything else like it on the web. Cow 15:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's mostly made up, and a lot of these aren't commonly held, so what's the point of keeping it?--Nomadicworld

[edit] T'ien_Lung_Tao

An ad for ~~a Canadian martial arts school~~ something. Gets 33 hits on Google. Squidwina 19:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not a Canadian martial arts school but an entire system of Martial Arts with school in the US, Canada, and Japan.

Comment The subject may be a system of martial arts, but it doesn't seem like a noteworthy one. The article is an ad nonetheless.Squidwina 21:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 01:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: notability not established, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've studied the Chinese martial arts for 21 years and I've never heard of it. Regardless, it could still be notable, but what is there doesn't make that case and isn't an encyclopaedia article in the least. Delete. Fire Star 04:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes it isn't a notable one, neither is Pai Lum or Chi Ling Pai Gung Fu which it is descended from. Squidwina thought it was a school and was wrong on that account. What else could Squidwina be wrong about? - Unsigned comment provided by 66.82.9.75.

I too have studied Martial Arts, since 1979. If you don't know who Daniel Pai, Manuel Agrella, Denis Decker, or Bruce Juchnik are then you probably don't know what T'ien Lung Tao is either. An advertisement would require contact information as how to join. What is provided is information about the system with no references as to where to get instruction in said system. So far you are not proving your point very well and showing to be more of the usual, our system is better than yours attitude. The fact is that no system is better than another. What can be better about a system is the scientific Theories it employs as a basis for its modality. Better questions result in better answers. I thought this place was supposed to be about information, not a place to flame. - Unsigned comment provided by 66.82.9.75.

This is a place for Wikipedia's editors to decide if the article should be kept. Fire Star 18:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have an issue with an entry please be qualitative and quantitative about said post. Sweeping statements show a lack of ability to prove your point - Unsigned comment provided by 66.82.9.75.

Dear 66.82.9.75, my "sweeping statement" was admitting that I didn't know if the style was notable and I provided a context for that statement as well as saying that the article itself doesn't meet my standards for an encyclopaedia. I didn't say that I thought the style itself was good or not. I also said that I thought the article wasn't up to standards, and voted to delete it not just on the actual construction of the article (which can be fixed easily enough) but also informed by the context that I have indeed never heard of the style in all my years of training, judging tournaments and travelling to China. It is a new style invented by a Westerner and doesn't meet my standards for notability because of its newness, not its technical basis. I also considered your uncalled-for comments about Squidwina. I hope for your sake that such a tone isn't indicative of the philosophy of the art you espouse. That is my explanation, as you requested, and I have been shown no reason to change my vote as yet. I'm sorry that you felt that I also deserved a defensive response. I recommend that you read up on Wikilove. Fire Star 18:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Variety of Kung fu. Has a hit for a related book on Amazon.com. —Brim 17:46, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I'm working on this with the original author to make it more suitable for an encyclopaedia by attaching history and an outline of its precepts. Muhuli 22:35, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

If the article is improved significantly AND evidence of notablilty provided (only 9 Google hits doesn't look good for it) I will change my vote. And please advise our unsigned friend on Wikiquette. Fire Star 23:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear “Fire Star”...

"it is a new style invented by a Westerner and doesn't meet my standards" sums up your argument and makes this appear as a personal issue, hence the seeming defensiveness. As I understand it, Wikipedia as a concept is supposed to be a living source of information. In this way, Wikipedia seems to embody a source of collective knowledge rather than a realm of personal myopic ramblings. Cataloging only what you feel is important leaves others to do without new and possibly desirable information, which seems to be contradictory to the concept of an open body of knowledge. As we are new here, it would be more constructive to assist us in sharing our information appropriately. We seek to share the history behind T'ien Lung Tao. We are not interested in ego conflicts.

We will continue to make revisions and if you wish to assist us that would be more helpful than what has been offered thus far.

Please note that we have added links to those persons and systems that have connections to T'ien Lung Tao. Many have been extremely influential throughout the Martial Arts world in the last 50 years ragardless whether or not you have personally heard of them. Our goal is to present only factual information in an unbiased way. If what we post does not come through that way please make exact reference to the issue so that we may clarify or remedy it accordingly. I am studying the Wikietiquette as you can see by my new signing. I have read up on Wikilove and haven’t seen much of it yet.AnDruidh 21:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been a student of the martial arts for more than twenty years and have been a referee and judge on the open tournament circuit for a large part of that time. During my years of training, I was taught by virtually all of my instructors that an open mind was one of my greatest tools as well as one of my strongest weapons. Nothing should be taken at its face value nor should it be dismissed out of hand. Unfortunately, I have seldom seen this lesson put into practice by many of my colleagues. With this in mind, I undertook a little research into the art of T’ien Lung Tao.

I had the distinct honour and privilege of meeting Grand Master Dennis Decker several years ago and trained with him on a couple of occasions shortly before his untimely death. Master Decker was a great innovator and leader on the cutting edge of martial arts education in North America if not the entire world. I had never met with anyone in the martial arts more noteworthy and remarkable…until now.

I met with Mr. Bober (his students call him Professor) and several of the instructors of T’ien Lung Tao, and have found that the system is indeed noteworthy and remarkable. The standard of education in their martial arts is beyond anything I have previously experienced and the quality of instruction is exceptional.

I also reviewed a number of entries (not exclusively martial arts) in the Wikipedia site as well as other sites of a similar nature. I find that the outline of T’ien Lung Tao is not very different from many other similar articles that have been accepted for some time.

Granted, T’ien Lung Tao has, until recently, been rather unknown, unremarked and little noticed. I am reminded of another small organization of printers and bicycle makers who were unknown, unremarkable, and of little note until one cold, windy day in 1903 at a little-known place called Kitty Hawk.

Keep the article. Snowbear 05:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. - Greetings:

As this site is open to anyone, thus the danger of having “anyone” posting. This can be either positive or negative. To observe these statements, knowing full well that there was no serious form of research done is a shame and a miscarriage of justice.

We have already seen statements made that were proven false. One individual has already made mention that in all of his years of training and judging he has never heard of it! We do not know the validity and quality of those years, yet it seems ironic that we are to believe his argument based on that he has not heard of it.

An extensive amount of martial artists have never even heard of a system known as Hanko-ryu. This system was created in Okinawa, and its founder would become one of the most famous Okinawan karate instructors of all time. Several movies were made based on his character.

This system is hardly even known today. Hanko-ryu (Half-Hard style) was created by Chojun Miyagi. Of course several years after creating hanko-ryu, he re-modeled it into what is now known as Goju-ryu. Most Goju-ryu stylists do not even know this.

In China, there are literally hundreds of martial arts systems, and the earlier commentary on never having heard of the style presupposes that the individual has extensively researched all of them.

I think there should not be a major focus on the history of the system but the information presented, which is hardly even discussed in martial arts circles. Having been in the martial arts for a couple of DECADES, having traveled across North America, I can name many systems that you may not have heard about.

Furthermore, disagreeing with the post just because the system was founded in the US strongly suggests a serious ethnic misconception of movement and motion. I am sorry but Orientals do not own human anatomy and physics.

I suggest you keep this post, and perhaps even learn from it by actually researching some of the material mentioned in it. - jadescorpion

[edit] Pelajaran

This non-English article has been lying about for more than a month. The article title word doesn't even appear in the article. The 'notenglish' template says the customary waiting period for translation is two weeks, which expired weeks ago. Niteowlneils 20:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, It's had a long time to be translated. It hasn't happened. Inter\^Echo 20:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - it's in Indonesian, and is little more than a sentence fragment. "Pelajaran" means "lesson". CDC (talk) 04:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In this case delete on its (lack of) merits (trusting CDC on this) rather than anything about language. However, that two weeks for translation is supposed to be from the time of listing on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I believe this was never listed, so nothing would have called translators' attention to it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of people from the United States

This is a textbook example of an unmaintainable, unnecessarily broad list that should certainly be coverted to categories. It is so incomplete that it's completely useless. For example, it doesn't list either Bush or Clinton in the politician category and doesn't have Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal or Barry Bonds in the Sports Persons category. Delete this article and either use existing categories or create new ones. Carrp | Talk 20:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, This list is incomplete. Nuh uh. Useless. What's next, List of everything that ever existed ever, honest!? Inter\^Echo 20:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If the aim is to categorize biographical articles in the Wikipedia according to whether they are about Americans, that is the purpose of categories. Not that I'd favor the creation of that category, mind. --BM 21:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'd rather use categories instead of a large broad list. Zzyzx11 22:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Of course, there are situations where a list is useful, especially when all of the articles in the list have not been started yet. But the list in question is not one of them. Zzyzx11 22:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, categories shouldn't take over completely from lists, but this is an exception to the rule. Mgm|^(talk) 22:34, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How many kilobytes would it take to list 260 million+ names anyway? 23skidoo 23:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If we assume an average name length of, say, 16 letters (first, middle, last), then that would be about 3.4 GB? Hmm.. you know, for only around 710,000 TB we can have List of all DNA bases for all people in the United States! Remember guys, Wiki is not paper!--Fastfission 00:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Easier than that - A, T, G, C, U. There. That's all of 'em. DS 03:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't paper, but still you have to draw the line somewhere! ;-) 23skidoo 06:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unmaintainable pointless list. Megan1967 01:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless and unencyclopedic. And by "unencyclopedic," I mean "it doesn't have any reason to exist." /sɪzlæk ˺/ 07:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is insane, something that would never be finished. How would anyone go by doing this, unless you had a bot automatically find every notable person in the U.S. and got it to put them all in here. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jonathunder 03:53, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
Delete all unmaintainable lists. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Could also use a List of people from planet Earth. —RaD Man (talk) 04:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that you're not serious. If so, please don't make "joke" votes. Carrp | Talk 13:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We have similar lists for many countries. Obviously, this should only be a list of people of encyclopedic notability. Like other such lists (vs. categories), allows the inclusion of people for whom articles should be written. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- How many people would you consider to be notable in the US? 10000? 50000? The list is so general and huge that it would be useless. For small countries, it may make sense to have an all-encompassing list. For a country with nearly 300 million people, the list is far too large. Carrp | Talk 13:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Probably it should mostly be breakouts to smaller lists. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, mosnter useless list.--LexCorp 03:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unmaintainable monstrosity. --Lee Hunter 12:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Miller

Probable vanity. Xezbeth 20:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- I'm fairly certain there's a slightly more notable Marc Miller -- wasn't he one of the main developers of the Traveller RPG? Silly Dan 22:47, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
- That would Marc W. Miller (that's how it is usually written). As for this entry, vanity, delete - Skysmith 09:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Looks less notable than I am, and I don't have a page. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 22:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, "the greatest student ever" kind of says it all. Inherent POV. Nick04 13:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are several notable Marc Millers in the world. But I suspect this is not one of them. — RJH 18:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2005 Subaru Legacy Red.JPG

Link added to the VfD page by anon user:24.205.57.29 but the discussion sub-page was not opened properly. Regardless, it should have been listed on "Images for deletion", not here. Please consider this discussion closed. Rossami (talk) 07:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Frost Middle School

Despite all of the verbiage, this is still just another non-notable middle school. Rick K 21:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, they're sure trying now. Still give it a delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not to mention that some of the categories of people are kind of inappropriate? (Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient, Students with Disabilities) -- Riffsyphon1024 21:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think those categories are the ones mandated by the state and federal assesment systems. 205.210.232.62 22:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I'm glad, for their sake, that they have some good teams, but almost every school has some teams that are halfway decent. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nice try, I give it BEEFSTEW points A, B, C, D, and E, for a total of 5/10. User:BrenDJ and User:Mathwiz2020 (who left himself some encouragement on his own Talk page, where's the welcoming committee?) put some serious work into it and the article is well organized. But, as RickK says, "just another non-notable middle school." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - verifiability supplied - David Gerard 02:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, contains information that distinguishes it from other schools, and necessary to the coverage of its local area. Kappa 02:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems like a decent article. - SimonP 05:59, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with SimonP. --Andylkl 08:51, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to primary and secondary education facilities. Though well-written, there is nothing in this article to show why this school warrants an entry as opposed to the many thousands of other US middle schools. Arkyan 13:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see anything in this article which indicates notability. Jeltz talk 15:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We don't need an article on every single secondary school in the world. Non-notable. DaveTheRed 18:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Round and round we go; it is because people try to delete articles like this that "non-notability" was not passed as a reason for deletion. If it were used more selectively then I imagine others would be more keen to allow it. Pcb21| Pete 20:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair 00:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redir to Montgomery County Public Schools secondary schools, where I've merged the info that seemed encyclopedic and NPOV. I have similar issues with the demographic stats--also seems excessive and transitory, although a discussion of any historical trends might be useful. I would like a clarification on the copyright status of the pic, like a statement from the photographer. If it was taken from the website from someone other than the person who took it, it is probably not public domain. Second choice is delete--I would argue that it is not "distinguished"--most communities in the 'developed' world have secondary schools, and they almost all have teams of varying performance. FWIW, there are 16054 public middle schools in the US alone. Niteowlneils 00:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No offense, but that merge looks ugly compared to the rest of the table. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 03:50, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish significant notability. — Gwalla | Talk 04:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Yet another middle school. Nothing to see here. Carrp | Talk 04:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Rockville, Maryland and delete - Skysmith 09:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Carrp and Gwalla. Radiant! 11:11, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Middle schools are very seldom notable, and this is not apparently an exception. A quick Googling finds Robert Frost Middle Schools in Los Angeles CA, Deer Park NY, Louisville KY, Markham IL, New Carrollton MD, Rockville MD, and elsewhere—and none appear to be very exciting. At most, merge a brief snippet into the community's article or an article on local education if one exists. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. On the one hand, it's not a useless stub like most of these articles, but actually has some content. On the other hand, I don't see anything notable about it. I'd vote to keep if there were something notable about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Switching vote to Delete. Notability still not established 4 days laters, and article is heavily sock-puppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article displays details and is well written. Having articles like this is what makes Wikipedia different from World Book.--BrenDJ 22:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a great article. --ARG 22:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: User's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On "notability" - if this really is what the community means by non-notable, then should we revisit the Ram-bot issue again? Clearly thousands of tinpot little American towns are non-notable to the same extent as this school, but it seems absurd to me to want to delete the information. Pcb21| Pete 22:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep- Why would this be deleated versus any other middle school article that was written?--Johnwz 00:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: User's third edit. Carrp | Talk 02:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. We should delete the other middle school articles too. DaveTheRed 02:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, there is nothing exceptional about this school--nixie 04:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a shining example of what other middle school articles on Wikipedia should aspire to be like. —RaD Man (talk) 04:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No notability, some POV writing on the school's strengths, and some statistics that will probably never be kept current. How is this a shining example? Indrian 04:51, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - In contrast to most other high school and middle school articles, how is this not a shining example? Notability is not a requirement for inclusion. —RaD Man (talk) 06:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - I will not go into a notability arguement at this time, but that does not address the other two issues I have raised. Keeping is fine if that is what you want, but callnig this a paragon of school articles is a bit extreme. Just because it is more than two lines and therefore superior to 99% of the school articles we have does not make it a shining example, which implies that a longer POV section and some unmaintainable statistics constitute an outstanding article on a school. Indrian 16:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Reluctant delete on basis of non-notability. I think it should be acceptable for someone to move this to their personal user space, and I would welcome suggestions for transwiki (is there are relevant local wiki, for example?). -- Jmabel | Talk 08:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep This belongs in wikipedia.--Rip87 12:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: User's third edit. Carrp | Talk 02:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Has a lot of detail, describes why this school is important. --Freakox8723 13:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: User's second edit. Carrp | Talk 02:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep -The Robert Frost Middle School article should NOT be nominated for deletion because it is renowned across the county for its superior students. Not only do they perform excellently on standardized tests but they also excel in extracurricular activities, as noted by the article. (From Robert Frost Middle School Talk page)--J.A.S. 13:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This section appears highly POV to me. If you want to present evidence of the excellence achieved by this school, it would be a good idea to quote some source other than the article itself, which seems biased. Indrian 16:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Note: User's fifth edit. Carrp | Talk 02:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep --ABC123 13:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note:User's second edit. Carrp | Talk 02:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
keep - it belongs on wikipedia. Yuckfoo 20:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Oh my goodness; it's a school, and who cares about that? Seriously, Wikipedia becomes more comprehensive when schools are written about in it, and there is no harm done to those don't like such articles. Stop this deletionist nonsense. 141.225.146.182 21:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Anon user's second edit. Carrp | Talk 02:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Unregistered and/or unsigned votes do not count on VfD. --Andylkl 06:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's only a description of the school...I suspect some kind of advertising... --Neigel von Teighen 22:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Why delete it? Why not just make it a stub?
I think I'm going to vote keep on this one. It really is well-written (though there are a few punctuation bugaboos) and the article actually does go to some length to establish at least a semblance of notability. This beats the living daylights out of the usual "bored student nanostub" type of school article. A BEEFSTEW of 5 is a lot higher than I've seen on this page. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Why delete an already good article?--Sportsgirl1534 02:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: User's second edit. Carrp | Talk 02:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep 64.231.46.157 02:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Anon user's second edit. Carrp | Talk 02:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Unregistered and/or unsigned votes do not count on VfD. --Andylkl 06:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Nicely written but still non-notable. Philthecow 02:17, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 02:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, BEEFSTEW score of 2 (ABCDE, middle school). —Korath (Talk) 06:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Terpsfan 11:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- User's second edit. —Korath (Talk) 12:08, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Careful, socks. I loathe sockpuppets. Keep in mind that I will gladly my comparatively weak keep vote to a delete with just a couple of keystrokes if this continues. - Lucky 6.9 18:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, I also think this article should be kept, and strongly encourage the admin making the final decision to ignore as many idiot sockpuppets as necessary, and see that there are still plenty of people wanting this kept. Pcb21| Pete 21:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*Not Voting I came across the Robert Frost Middle School page and noticed this page, I then read all the comments about not being notable, but the school apparently is one of the best Jazz teams in their State according to the article. --Scifi 22:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ~~User's fifth edit, first four edits were to create a user page immediately before making this edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)~~
Keep and allow for organic growth. Tis a shame about all the puppets. GRider\^talk 00:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete No notable school. There must be thousands of schoold around the word with this kind of banal claim of being notable--LexCorp 03:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thousands? More like hundreds of thousands. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: You'd have a snowball's chance in hell if anyone thinks that sock-puppeting multiple "keep" votes would help save an article from VfD. Stop it and let the voting go on fairly, please. --Andylkl 06:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-encyclopedic -- ask yourself, would you or should you be looking up ordinary American middle schools in an encyclopedia? --Calton | Talk 07:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a fair question. So I ask you Calton, in addition to "ordinary American middle schools", do you honestly think you would ever find yourself looking up chancellor Albert Carnesale, "sex move" Donkey punch, Pokémon character Gary Oak, internet meme Numanuma, Slashdot, Star Trek versus Star Wars or, heaven forbid, the GNAA in a so-called real encyclopaedia? Many would argue that Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia as it stands, so the inclusion of an educational institution should come as no surprise. In light of the other material that is kept on Wikipedia, this article is an easy and obvious keep. GRider\^talk 17:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - The citation of a random seletion of other articles, some of which are also on vfd, does not establish notability for this article. Gamaliel 18:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - You are correct, it does not. My comment was a response to a question, not a motion to establish notability. This educational institution is inherently noteworthy and its a travesty that these sort of articles are continually being listed for deletion. GRider\^talk 18:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Is it necessary to rehash this sterile debate every time a school article comes up for VfD? Can't we all just acknowledge that there is no consensus on this point, agree to disagree, and just vote and move on? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        Yes, this will be possible once valid school stubs stop being listed for deletion. GRider\^talk 19:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        So, in other words, debate can stop once everyone agrees with you. Gamaliel 22:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        In other words, once valid school stubs stop being listed for deletion we can move on. GRider\^talk 22:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Chancellor Carnesale seems to be quite notable, for reasons outlined in his VfD entry. Slashdot is a forum to which more than ten million messages have been posted by hundreds of thousands of users. Even Numanuma has been covered in the New York Times. Robert Frost Middle School (of which there are several in the United States) seems to be a generic middle school, with no notable alumni and no known appearances in the national media. It's not even a notable internet meme...why is this school noteworthy? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - To say that any of those subjects are more or less noteworthy than this middle school would be nothing more than subjective opinion and POV, and you're entitled to that. GRider\^talk 20:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Actually, the evidence is quite objective in that those subjects have received significant media coverage, while this school has received none. Gamaliel 22:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        The belief that media coverage makes you more or less notable than something else is completely subjective and POV. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia which are encyclopedically valuable and have never received any sort of "media coverage". Media coverage != encyclopedic. GRider\^talk 22:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        So please tell us what sort of encyclopedic standard excludes Slashdot but includes Middle of Nowhere Middle School. Gamaliel 22:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        If you're intentionally missing the point here then I can't help you. GRider\^talk 23:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        What point am I missing? Care to answer the question I posed at all? Gamaliel 01:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        Based upon the trends I have been following on VfD, one could concretely assert that Wikipedia is only a "real" encyclopaedia when it is a matter of convenience to be one. The entire matter of "notability" is one hundred percent subjective. As it has been so vibrantly illustrated right here in this discussion, many contributors to Wikipedia strongly DO believe schools to be inherently noteworthy and "encyclopedic". To answer your original question, which was incorrectly punctuated, yes, schools in the "middle of nowhere" are included in print-encyclopaedias without any mention of Slashdot. Does this really surprise you? Either we can agree to disagree and move on, or continue to repeat ourselves in this exercise of futility. Which do you choose? GRider\^talk 17:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Please do not bite the newcomers. An influx of new users, especially on VfD, does not necessarily mean they are sockpuppets. However, anonymous and new users should be aware that we've had significant problems with sockpuppets in the past, so simple statements of opinion are likely to be ignored. Hard facts which add to the discussion, on the other hand, would be much more useful. Has this school had any notable alumni, for example? Or media coverage (besides local descriptions of athletic events)? —Korath (Talk) 08:00, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Response: I don't know why people would create sockpuppets, but I agree, don't bite them. As for notable alumni, I am compiling a list currently. This Saturday, there may also be media coverage if Robert Frost Middle School wins the regional science bowl (there was media coverage when the local high school won their science bowl last weekend.)
  - Response: Frost did win the Virginia/Maryland Regional Science Bowl and there will be an article in the Rockville Gazette newspaper. Coverage of a science bowl does not seem to fall under the category of "local descriptions of athletic events." The article will appear this Wednesday and, if they put the article online (which they do not do with all their articles), I will post a link. Besides, the vote is 35 keep to 25 delete. Even subtracting some keeps (because of the sockpuppets), it seems like keep won by a landslide. Although there aren't any notable alumni I have found as of now, there might be years from now considering there seem to be exceptionally gifted students (that won the science bowl for two states.) By the way, what's "vote stacking"?
    - Vote stacking, in this instance, would appear to be a term used carelessly and unrespectfully by a minority of deletionists who would very much like nothing more than to discredit honest votes from a large group of contributors to Wikipedia who passionately believe that this article is of value and should not be deleted. GRider\^talk 17:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable instantiation of the middle-school concept. -- WOT 23:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notice to reviewing administrator: There was an attempt to vote stack on this article. See GRider's contributions. Votes beyond this point need to be reviewed carefully and considered carefully. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users must consider all policies and former consensus before commenting for consensus: Please note, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is not the only policy to consider.

Considerations should also be made to the following as well:

Users should remember that the Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having said and done all that, if a substantial number of genuine users (not sockpuppets) want an article kept, then it has to be kept. VfD is about establishing a consensus for deletion under deletion policy. If there are a lot of genuine users who want to keep (be they a minority or majority) then it will be kept. Where they "came from" is essentially irrelevant. Pcb21| Pete 00:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep A model school article. Wincoote 20:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article hasn't been around for a month yet (first created 21/02/05!) - surely it needs time to develop lists of alumni and so on? Drw25 21:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. That's putting the cart before the horse. There's no reason to create an article in the first place if the original author can't or won't add anything noteworthy. VfD also allows for five days of fairly intense scrutiny—if there's something notable to be said about this school, someone will probably find it. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep I have to agree, why do individual fictional characters from Manga have their own encyclopedia entries, but schools are hit with VFD's left and right? For all we know a future US President could come from that school. --Oarias 22:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- My cat could start talking in Swahili in the future, too. Talking cats might be encyclopedic. So might middle schools with presidential alumni. This is neither. —Korath (Talk) 22:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - What is this might business you're talking about!?! RaD Man (talk) 22:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, high schools and beyond are inherently encyclopedic (and I shan't get started on all the video game nano-cruft that lurks around here). I know this is a middle school, keeping this one seems helpful to me. Wyss 23:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Very notable. -CunningLinguist 03:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Google return approx. 2,000 results, very notable given that even the most pretigious high schools in Singapore return only 500 results. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. JuntungWu 12:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think schools are inherently notable. Further, "notability" is not listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy (even though I wish it were, and have tried to include it), so isn't grounds for deletion anyway. Dan100 17:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Another time-wasting deletioncruft nomination.--Centauri 23:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. School.LukeSurl 23:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Article provides useful information. SCEhardt 00:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 11:36, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: In regards to claims of vote-stacking, their are large amounts of people who beleive well-written articles for schools are inherently notable. Merely bringing an article to someones attention is no more votestacking than providing a link for someone is. If you'll notice, GRider's contributions were far and wide and not concentrated on any bloc or mailing list group. Speaking for myself, I evaluated the article and voted to keep it out of sincere belief that it deserved to be kept and not out of any votestacking motivation. I have faith that the majority of the other voters did as well. Thank you for your time. -CunningLinguist 03:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Middle schools are not inherently encyclopediac. --Carnildo 04:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Substantial content. Useful information. Accademic performance seems to make it notable anyway.--cfp 18:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Provincial claims of academic or extracurricular excellence do not constitute notability. Delete. RadicalSubversiv E 00:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete'. No context. To be encyclopedic, a school has to have some wider resonance in general culture. --Wetman 20:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I added an aerial photo and a nice table. Is that enough to keep it?
keep i have to, they admitted me when i got expelled from private school in 5th grade. ALKIVAR™ 04:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a real place, Mark Richards 21:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added a table, an aerial, and lots more information. There's even a newspaper article being printed tomorrow and a press release being wired next week! What more do you want? I think you should keep it and allow "organic growth." I also agree with someone else (I forget where I saw this) where we should just make a templete and put it on all schools to regulate them. Enough with all this VFD business. — mathwiz2020\^talk Image:Mathwiz2020.jpg 01:34, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I've drafted a school's template Template:School. Please comment and edit. I've tried it out on Adams' Grammar School--LukeSurl 00:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - seems like decent article, verifiable -- Lochaber 15:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Pcpcpc says "a model school article". What xe really means is "a boilerplate school article". Most of this article is just an exercise in raw statistics within a framework that could apply to any school ("Headmaster X, enrollment Y, maths club, band, sports teams, motto ..." — data that are just extra columns in the tables at Montgomery County Public Schools secondary schools in fact), and gives one no context whatever. Moreover: When I pushed for improvement to establish notability early on in this article's history, what I wasn't pushing for was this exercise in academic boosterism. The school is "fifth in the county" in one respect, and "one of the only schools in the county" in another. What does it mean to be "one of the only schools"? And what are the standard deviations that accompany the various means (without which many of the raw statisics are pretty useless)? The prodding has just resulted in padding, I'm afraid. What makes this school stand out from the crowd of 37 middle schools in Montgomery County alone [3], let alone from the crowd of the hundreds of thousands of such schools in the world? Nothing, apparently. Niteowlneils has pointed out some of the other issues that I would have mentioned, such as the copyright violations in the included images and the lack of any sort of analysis that would warrant an article rather than a line in a table. Delete. Uncle G 19:41, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Comment It is one of the sucesses of mathematics that large quanties of information can be summarised in statistics. The use of this in this article is well thought out and certainly encylopedic. A researcher looking at this page would be very happy with what he saw and horrified that all but "one line in a table" were to be deleted for the reasoning afformentioned.

What makes this school stand out from the crowd is evident on the page. A school does not need Nobel Prize Winners in its alumi to unique, this article is evidence that in-depth research into a school will uncover unique information. The above article simplifies articles' validity down to a one-dimensional scale, which is very tempting to do when considering VfD, of notablility of facts contained in article. On this scale, almost all schools will be deleted as they'd fall into the middle ground. However in reality the total is greater than the sum of the parts and a collaboration of these facts and figures in a coherent article builds up a real and encyclopedic picture of what the school is like.

As a summation, if you picked up one of the 1157 pupils in this school and placed them in one of the other 37 middle schools in Montgomery County do you think they'd consider the differences non-notable?--LukeSurl 00:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deidre Downs

Vanity. Markl222 Feb. 25, 2005

This wasn't quite listed properly (I found this page not linked to anything). I'm just completing the listing. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - She is Miss America 2005, and all the Miss Americas are linked to their own articles on the Miss America wiki page. Some already have pages, so why shouldn't this person be entitled to their own page? Nick04 23:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Miss America crown is notable enough for me. Megan1967 01:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "Vanity" means you think it was written by her or a close associate. Is that really what you thought reading it? - David Gerard 02:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Definition 3 of vanity from answers.com. User:Markl222 10:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. She's Miss America 2005! I'm all for civility, but honestly, RESEARCH before nominating. Mike H 02:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I repeat, Miss Americas and Playboy Playmates (tut, tut) do not deserve their own articles. They barely have ANYTHING noteworthy besides the title. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a garbage bin. Delete all is my suggestion. Next. User:Markl222 10:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion, Mark1222. But there are many Wikipedians like me who disagree with you and truly believe Miss Americas and Playboy Playmates are notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Keep. Zzyzx11 04:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep is their an echo in here. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I hate the Miss America Pageant. It's vain, silly, and a bunch of fluff. Sadly, the world at large disagrees with me. Keep. DaveTheRed 18:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The Miss America pageant is notable enough for an article. The winners, as a general rule, aren't, and have only a kind of ephemeral, manufactured, pseudo-celebrity. The only one I can think of who has achieved any kind of notability recently is Vanessa Williams, and she resigned her Miss America title. Indeed, most of the entries in the list of winners in the Miss America article are still red links -- which is as it should be, since most of them have not done anything. The very few articles that do exist from that list are like this one, and just say that the person won the Miss America contest, with a few random biographical facts of no consequence. So, delete this one, and most of the others from the Miss America list, and unwiki the names in that list, so that nobody thinks that articles ought to exist on them. --BM 14:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Minor celebrity. We have a Miss America pageant category, so we might as well populate it with articles. —Brim 17:05, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree 100% with DaveTheRed. Miss Pippa 23:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Extreme del^H^H^HKEEP. —RaD Man (talk) 02:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep I think Miss America winners are inherently notable, and would say the same about Miss California or even Miss Wyoming winners. Tuf-Kat 23:06, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Barely notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Die on room

Huh? This is very nearly a speedy candidate (nonsense). -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Delete article and content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I just don't get that nonsense. Zzyzx11 22:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No "nearly" about it. I just speedy-deleted it as patent nonsense. Sounds to me like the output of one of those Markov-process text generators, though it probably isn't.... Entire content is shown below. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There has been much debate in the scorpion community whether or not given "die on room" if any eggs will be put to there. While many would try to claim - even in the modern age - that the question is up for debate, nonetheless it has been reasonably proved that the die on room question can only come up in situations where, logically, eggs are put (see Wittgenstein).

[edit] American Western Dialect

is more vandalism disguised as original research pretending to be a credible article. I propose deletion; I have warned the anonymous IP. Daniel Quinlan 22:09, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

May be it should be modified? I am not a specialist, but look here - [4] There is a big description of various dialects, with references.

Delete. This looks like another incarnation of the "Californian Dialect" that was previously listed on VfD. — J3ff 00:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research/essay. Megan1967 01:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: the topic belongs under American_English#Regional_differences, which is thin on western dialects but already has a much more competent discussion. NathanV 14:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lachoza

Non-notable. Plus I can't find the exact page out there, but this has to be a copyvio as well. Plus it reads like a fan site.

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 04:46, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big_Black_Dong

God damn, I wish this sort of thing could be speedied. It doesn't matter what Spencer yells in the office when he is annoyed, dammit. DS 23:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete completely useless and a work of trolling. --Lan56 00:14, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
It can be speedy deleted, and it has been. Rick K 00:25, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Good call. For the record, entire content of deleted article was as shown below: Dpbsmith (talk) 03:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What Spencer yells when he's being annoyed in the helpline office. Also known as BBD. Not to be confused with BBQ. Misunderstood by all but a few NetTechs.

23:55, Feb 26, 2005 RickK deleted The worst (vanity band, copied from their myspace.com page)

[edit] The worst

Someone coined the phrase "bandity" for this - band vanity. Their name is inherently ungoogleable, being such a common string, but "founded in March 2004" tells us all we need to know. Come back in five years, boys. DS 00:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_February_26_f8e0.html"