Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 26	February 28 >

1 February 27

[edit] February 27

[edit] Meredith Mishkin

Non-notable teenager whose only claim to fame is a one-time appearance on a reality TV show on a children's cable television network. Rick K 00:19, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The author of this article seems to be creating entries about non-noteable high school aged students. Arkyan 01:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Rje 03:14, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough. Zzyzx11 04:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough. —Brim 17:09, 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. The information is all in Star Wolf already. I think I'll merge the other minor characters there. dbenbenn | talk 23:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Powalski

Gamecruft.DS 00:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge or keep "gamecruft Kappa 02:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merging wouldn't work well because Star Fox 64 doesn't delve into this kind of detail, and doesn't list any other minor characters. Foobaz·✐ 06:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Irrelevant gamecruft. — Gwalla | Talk 04:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can definately clean this article up a bit. Thunderbrand 18:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mekh times

No hits on Google, shockingly enough. Seems to be vanity. CJCurrie 00:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Rje 03:16, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable unless someone provides evidence for "It has been highly acclaimed by many people and has recieved numerous awards." Zzyzx11 04:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There will never, ever be a source for "It has ... recieved numerous awards," because "recieve" is not a word. :-) /sɪzlæk ˺/ 07:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pine Forest Camp

Non-notable sleepover camp. One of the oldest family run businesses in America although only 75 years old? Rick K 00:50, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, specialized knowledge is notable in my opinion. Besides, Google yields 5400 hits for this. Andrew pmk 03:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- True but you average summer camp hardly qualifies as "specialized knowledge". Megan1967 04:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What specialized knowledge does this article evince? Rick K 05:30, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless the camp has sufficient history and notability, and then Expand. As-is the article is just another useless tidbit of information about yet another childrens' summer camp. Arkyan 04:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone provides notable evidence. Zzyzx11 04:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, one of the top camps in America, celebrating 75th Anniversary, plus I've gone there for 9 years. Jared21487 02:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Remember to identify yourself as the author of the article nominated for deletion when voting. Please check the VfD etiquette at the top of this page. Arkyan 13:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just some American summer camp.Martg76 09:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, apparently named the 'family business of the year' and won other awards, 75 years of history, and necessary to coverage of its local area. Kappa 17:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A little bit of Googling reveals the camp was given this award by MassMutual Life Insurance company. I would hardly say this qualifies a small business for notoriety. If the author or someone else would share with us some chapters of its 75 year history that warrant a general knowledge encyclopedia entry then I can see keeping it, but currently there is nothing in this entry worth hanging on to. Arkyan 18:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - An award from MassMutual Life Insurance doesn't make it earth-shatteringly famous, but it elevates it above the level of "random small business vanity", which is enough for me. Kappa 00:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Summer camps are not encyclopedia topics, as a general rule, and notwithstanding MassMutual to the contrary, this isn't apparently an exception. Wikipedia isn't a Summer Camp Guide. --BM 18:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see how this is notable or necessary to the coverage of its local area. DaveTheRed 18:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless more information indicating notability is provided. 400 campers all summer? -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable summer camp. — Gwalla | Talk 04:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - one of the thousands - Skysmith 09:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, concur with Skysmith. Radiant! 10:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn —Xezbeth 16:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Jonathunder 23:23, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
Keep. n. —RaD Man (talk) 04:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, definately not notable--nixie 06:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Vote by an admitted troll whose raison d'etre is to follow me around, make minute edits to article I have just edited, and vote on VfD the opposite of the way I vote. Rick K 00:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. —Korath (Talk) 06:55, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Alper

Non-notable high school student. Seems to be written by an author who is creating entries about school friends and summer camps that are also up for deletion. Arkyan 01:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone provides more notable evidence. Zzyzx11 04:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Rick K 05:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not notable. —Brim 17:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn vanity. —Korath (Talk) 07:06, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pantology

Apparently rather more than a theory of everything. But an orphan deadend. A search suggests it may be confused with the science of trousers or pantomimes or even forensics in the JFK assasination [1]. An article which looks incapable of giving any positive examples of something is a useless dictionary definition.--Henrygb 01:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 02:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as long as it can be cleaned up and expanded as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 04:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Isn't Wikipedia a pantology? Isn't a Grand Unified Theory a pantology? Anyway I think this should probably be a dictionary definition. — RJH 18:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No vote, but kudos to Henrygb for coming up with "the science of trousers". Meelar (talk) 20:05, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's not in my dictionary (Webster's New American) so I'm guessing that it's either a neologism or jargon specific to philosophy. The current version is a mere definition. I don't see any way to expand it. [m:Transwiki|]]. (I'll change my vote if someone substantially expands it before the discussion period ends.) Rossami (talk) 07:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its apparently listed in the 1913 Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary, so I doubt it's a neologism. I also see several uses of the word in reference to authoritative works on particular fields. E.g. forensic pantology. The word is also apparently used in reference to a clothing line. :D — RJH 18:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Rossami, Transwiki. Radiant! 10:26, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A sentence from the article says it all: "Pantology is difficult to more clearly define because it is a little addressed subject and so expansive that it seems beyond the stretch of current human development of knowledge." Therefore, can't be expanded and not encyclopedic. —Brim 17:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not even a dicdef.--Audiovideo 23:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Several different online dictionaries found it, Transwiki to Wiktionary. DaveTheRed 00:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. I too initially thought it meant "study of trousers", but I found it's a real word that really does mean "work of universal information" ([2]). -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 05:12, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

[edit] John Nappi

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. DS 01:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, 'tis vanity says I. Rje 03:18, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Smells like vanity. Zzyzx11 04:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. —Brim 17:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn vanity. —Korath (Talk) 07:06, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Fisher

Gushingly promotional on Philip Fisher, whose book supposedly transformed Warren Buffett from "just another "Graham and Dodd" disciple" into a billionare investor. Cleanup notices were placed on article and removed within a few hours by 220.118.62.91, the article's author. Even if the subject matter is encyclopedic, this is nothing like encyclopedic coverage. ~~Delete~~ unless someone is willing to cleanup, which would pretty much entail rewriting from scratch. Update: Lee Hunter's cleanup and the provision of sources have answered some of these objections, so I'm changing to a keep and cleanup. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not encyclopaedic, promo. Megan1967 03:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity page. Andrew pmk 03:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It currently is a vanity-filled, self-promotion page. Zzyzx11 04:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good heavens, this is absolutely not vanity!. The book was first published in 1958 and has been reprinted ever since. In the investment community Fisher is a very notable writer. [3] The article does need a little work, though. --Lee Hunter 12:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- a little?? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Very little work! I spent about five minutes cleaning it up and adding some more info. It could use more attention but it's now a respectable article IMO. --Lee Hunter 17:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, with Lee's edits. DaveTheRed 06:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Out of touch

Very questionable whether this band is at all notable and the obvious hoax elements further reduce the chance that there's anything here worth the effort of saving. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, looks like a hoax to me. The band aren't notable either way. Rje 04:04, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone provides notable evidence. Zzyzx11 04:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity - "nice Ikea kitchen" and all. Megan1967 04:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 04:48, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, again - looks like a hoax.

[edit] Media whore

Currently libellous POV, but I'm not sure the term is worth an article. What do we think? DJ Clayworth 03:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless someone can write the article in a NPOV citing various notable and credible NPOV sources. Zzyzx11 04:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Currently, the biggest problem is that it names two media personalities without providing any notable evidence. If someone can rewrite this article from a NPOV, I would be inclined to keep it. Zzyzx11 04:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I would be inclined to keep and rewrite this article - especially removing those names mentioned. "Media Whore" scores 38,200 hits on Google. Megan1967 04:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Term has currency. Put it on the cleanup list. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete --68.239.75.16 00:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Article just labels Bill O'Reilly as a media whore. Maybe they're right, however is that generalization needed in a NPOV encyclopedic article? I say keep and give it a good cleaning. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Term is notable, article needs major work. Carrp | Talk 16:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Cleanup. Commonly used term, particularly emblamatic of modern times... I'm not averse to naming names to the extent that there is support for it (i.e. "Joe Doe has been referred to as a media whore by source x, based on events y and z"). --BD2412 19:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, the term is used often. So is "dumbass". That doesn't mean an article is warranted. It's just a general insult for somebody who is prominent in the media. Dictdef at best. — Gwalla | Talk 04:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Gwalla, Delete. Radiant! 10:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The term certainly has currency, and may soon be applied in entirely new ways due to current events. [wry grin] However, I think anything beyond a dictdef is necessarily going to verge on the POV and libelous, as I cannot imagine adding anything except examples and descriptions of alleged media whoring beyond the definition itself. Or, even worse, a list of WP links to those who the current author believes fills the description. HyperZonk^talk 17:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ditto what Gwalla said. ScottM 18:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) (edit forgot to sign in)
Keep and clean up. I think this has enough currency to keep. Wikipedia has other articles on pejoratives such as Carpetbagger and Homophobe. At the very least we should include the definition in List of political epithets. DaveTheRed 22:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup. James F. (talk)
Comment. I removed the part about O'Reilly and Williams. The article still needs clean up and expansion, but at least it's not POV anymore. DaveTheRed 02:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 42,600 Google entries on "media whore". ≈ jossi ≈ 04:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's still a dicdef. Radiant! 08:53, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. n. —RaD Man (talk) 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep & Cleanup. Wifki 07:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Pgreenfinch 07:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A dictdef at best, and that of a mostly content-free insult. How could this be expanded and cleaned-up? Media whores in history? Lists of notable media whores? Media whores around the world? Media whore neighborhoods? Media whore cooking tips? --Calton | Talk 14:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Calton is right. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Add to list of political epithets and redirect there. -Sean Curtin 03:04, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to Move to Wiktionary? Penwhale 16:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean, very commonly used term and even if a "list of media whores" is a little POV, the history of the term could be interesting. Philthecow 16:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo ds vs sony psp

Not encylopedic. Wikipedia is not a place for comparison of commerical products. May contain copyvios taken off a various number of online sources but not clear-cut for me to list it on WP:CP. - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This comparison of commercial products does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 05:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedia material.--Firsfron 05:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, smacks of advertising and POV to me. --Kitch 06:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as Mailer Diablo says, possible copyvio. I think it uses most of the text from [4], but not entirely sure. Nick04 13:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 11:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-enyclopedic, possible copyvio, and huge POV. ✏ OvenFresh ² 20:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 04:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Fanboy rave. K1Bond007 03:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walter D. Petrovic

This is an article about a non-notable person, possible vanity. Rje 04:10, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non-sourced. Paul August ☎ 04:12, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. I love the quote: "Above is first-hand information obtained from Walter D. Petrovic himself.". Zzyzx11 04:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obvious vanity. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 07:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unpublished author, no other claim to notability. —Korath (Talk) 07:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, dear, I'm torn. I can't actually vouch for notability here, because I can't find a damn thing on either Google or Amazon to support it, and yet just seeing his name in the VfD contents list immediately pinged my internal "hey! Canadian writer!" alarm. I don't know if I'm psychic, or missing something somewhere. (My late response is attributable not to a delayed reaction, but to the fact that I simply didn't see it before. This was my first serious scan of VfD topics in a couple of weeks; my VfD activity lately has been restricted to topics that got posted to the Canadian discussion board by other people.) Could we please withhold deletion for one more day so I can ask the Canucks for input? Bearcat 08:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like nobody's weighed in...go ahead and delete. If I come across later proof that my response was factually warranted and not just a weird coincidental hunch, I can always recreate the article with a better explanation of notability. Bearcat 22:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Kennedy

This has had an {{unencyclopedic}} tag on it for a month or so. I agree - this guy isn't notable. CDC (talk) 04:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The article has had the {{unencyclopedic}} tag for too long. Zzyzx11 04:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no relevant hits for Kennedy as general manager of Smackdown!. Current general manager appears to be Stephanie McMahon. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not notable. —Brim 17:20, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity hoax. —Korath (Talk) 07:09, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AndhraOne

This is a substub identifying an online forum of only regional interest. Such a forum would need to be interesting in some other way in order to be encyclopedic. It also basically doesn't register on Google, for what that's worth. CDC (talk) 04:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless someone provides more notable content. Zzyzx11 04:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Foobaz·✐ 08:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It gets 12 hits on Google, of which 4 are from this VfD discussion. Not notable. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 05:15, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
Delete. If it is indeed what this article says it is, then a link in Andhra Pradesh will suffice. It doesn't need its own article. Gamaliel 05:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, forumvertisement. Zero google hits besides us, them, and "this domain name is unregistered". —Korath (Talk) 07:11, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2006-07 NHL season

Delete, speculation about a future season before even the season before it started, this information more pertains to the 2005-06 NHL season then the next one. And said information could be said about every other forthcoming season as well, considering the current state of the league, but i don't see a rush to write articles for the 2007-08 NHL season or the 2008-09 NHL season. Also considering that the future of the league as a whole has yet to be determined, as their could possibly be no NHL in for the 2006-07. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 05:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Premature, and any information relating to the next season being jeopardized by the strike can be discussed in the 2004-2005 season article, though by the look of the red link above, there doesn't appear to be one. 23skidoo 06:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed link. There's nothing on that page either, but it has more scope for expansion. sjorford →•← 10:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's possible to write an encyclopedic article about a future event, but only if there's anything that can be said about it. That doesn't seem to be the case here; what can you say about a sports season that won't happen for a year and a half without pure speculation? /sɪzlæk ˺/ 07:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I predict this article will be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicates info in the 2005-06 article. If there was anything unique to be said, I'd be all for keeping it. – flamurai (t) 16:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Buddhist topics

You have already deleted the imitation, Index of topics in alternative medicine see [5], now here is your chance to delete the original. The same dumb reason should apply since only the subject matter differs. The original reason was unintelligible, so here is a rough translation: Redundancy with their more complete list of terms and concepts article. This redundant list should probably be deleted and merged into the more complete list of Buddhist terms and concepts article. -- John Gohde 04:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Come up with a reason that isn't sour grapes. Until then, Keep. Snowspinner 05:01, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete simply because Category:Buddhism now does a better job. Are all articles on this list entered in the Category:Buddhism? That is the only question. --Wetman 05:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - What is true for one index is also true for an identical index on another topic, unless of course the first index was deleted for bogus reasons. -- John Gohde 05:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, duplicate/redundant list. Megan1967 05:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It is beginning to look like Index of topics in alternative medicine was deleted for completely bogus reasons because these votes for deletion are nothing but a popularity contest by editors without a life who live on Wikipedia that has nothing to with anything. -- John Gohde 05:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lists and categories have different purposes. Rick K 06:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Valid list, and not redundant with Buddhist terms and concepts. Listed on vfd solely for the purpose of making a stink. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm sick of people using VfD as a tool to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 07:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Definitely Keep This list is far more easy to use than any category. It allows to have some clear formatting which unfortunately a category doesn't have. It also permits the listing "in red" of some article names which do not exist yet, signalling gaps and inviting contributions, which also a category cannot do. By the way, I thought edits on Wikipedia should try to be constructive, rather than destructive: in doubt, and if many people find such a list useful, please leave it to them, even if it creates some sort of redundancy. PHG 12:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Put here for WP:POINT-making. See also the entry for Template:Buddhism on WP:TFD (removed by Netoholic as obvious bad faith). Nominator is upset at nomination of pet articles a few months ago - David Gerard 12:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. ✏ OvenFresh ² 17:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons given by User:PHG Shantavira 18:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep can we instead delete disruptive users like John Gohde? —ExplorerCDT 22:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful list. Jonathunder 03:47, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
Keep. Invalid nomination. — Gwalla | Talk 04:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Antandrus 04:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Hopefully the redlinks on the list will show the areas on Buddhism where articles need to be created. Capitalistroadster 08:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
While I generally favor categories over lists, this one seems finite enough to have a point. Keep. Radiant! 10:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously, John Gohde nominated this because he is upset that Index of topics in alternative medicine was deleted. That makes this a bad-faith nomination. It seems that we should remove bad-faith nominations, rather than vote on them. If we are going to vote, however, we should vote on the merits and not vote to "Keep" something simply because it has been submitted to VfD in bad faith to make a point. The arguments that were used to justify the deletion of Index of topics in alternative medicine do indeed justify the deletion of this article. As was already argued, there is no need for a manually-maintained list of topics in a subject area. That is what categories are for. As for using such a list as a place to call for the creation of articles by inserting red links, there are other, better, mechanisms for that also. --BM 15:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The category template does a fine job, as should Buddhist terms and concepts. Seems redundant to me, and far more difficult to maintain that a category. However, I believe that it may be a bit disingenuous to submit both the list (this VfD) and the Buddhism template for deletion, as has been done in this case. Listing both seems to indicate that someone is trying to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. IMO, the template should stay. HyperZonk^talk 17:47, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain Malicious nomination.--Lee Hunter 13:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Current policy is to use both catagories and lists. Lists can contain red links. Then again, red links could be included in the catagory pages themselves... hmmm.... --L33tminion | (talk) 15:20, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. May be of use to some people. -- Infrogmation 17:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neurocam is complete fabrication

The title is unrelated to the content, which is obviously c&p'd from somewhere else.

The title is POV (maybe? I'm not sure what the policy on this)

If the content is wikipediable, here is not the place for it.

SeventyThree 05:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speed deleted as ranting and nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Speedy. Longhair 12:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Boilerplate text

This page is not maintained; it should be deleted and anything not listed on Wikipedia:Template messages should be added there (or other pages as appropriate). The latter is more comprehensive, is divided by subject, and is actively being maintained. -- Beland 05:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Information is still useful, and it's a lot easier to navigate than WP:TM. I've used it. Foobaz·✐ 06:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The information is still relevant and simple to navigate as mentioned above. It's a good resource for new Wikipedians who are learning their way around. Arkyan 07:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I used it yesterday... Nick04 09:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge Template messages with this. This is what the help file links to, and I always use this one. --Kitch 21:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep but as a summary card for Wikipedia:Template messages - ie only refer to the approved Message codes. Consider renaming as Template messages: summary Scottkeir 23:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm a newbie and find it helpful in learning all the new information. Graniterock 04:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but make clear that this is an introduction to the concept of boilerplate text with a few examples of some of the most common/useful and that the full up to date reference is at WP:TM. - Drstuey 12:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and merge with redirect (weak) 64.50.192.206 01:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is on my "vital links" page. — Asbestos | Talk 16:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Durrett

Article about a non-notable person, possibly a vanity article. I reccomend it be deleted. Foobaz·✐ 06:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless someone provides notable evidence. Zzyzx11 20:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, maybe merge this and Kathryn McCamant into an article about their book instead. I believe the book is notable, even if they may not be notable indendent of the book. I'm not aware of any reason to keep separate articles on each of them. At the very least, they and their book deserve mention at "cohousing". -- Jmabel | Talk 21:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kathryn McCamant

Article about a non-notable person, possibly a vanity article. I reccomend it be deleted. Foobaz·✐ 06:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless someone provides notable evidence. Zzyzx11 20:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not notable enough. —Brim 17:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, maybe merge this and Charles Durrett into an article about their book instead. I believe the book is notable, even if they may not be notable independent of the book. I'm not aware of any reason to keep separate articles on each of them. At the very least, they and their book deserve mention at "cohousing". -- Jmabel | Talk 21:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, I'm the one that posted this. I know them personally and asked them if they had any biographical information. My only rationale for attaching their bios was that I hought that it might be of use when I saw the CoHousing article with dead links to each of them as individuals. I did try to remove any gratuitous self serving info from their bios before posting, but if I'm violating posting rules, I'm happy to have them pulled. bren@lene.com

[edit] 2000's fashion

Non-encyclopedic, original research, created by a vandal. Rick K 06:18, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. And apparently my style needs some work! Foobaz·✐ 06:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and all other original research articles. /sɪzlæk ˺/ 07:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like original research. Zzyzx11 20:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research. May reconsider if sources are cited. —Korath (Talk) 07:13, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 clear consensus (but strong majority to keep). Cool Hand Luke 07:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape runes

This level of detail about a~~n obscure~~ game is not encyclopedic, and constitutes fancruft. I think it should be deleted. I feel the same about the other RuneScape subpages but will wait to see how this one fares. Foobaz·✐ 06:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge into a single article about the game along with any subpages. The game is widespread enough to warrant an entry of its own but obscure subpages are clutter. Arkyan 07:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Everyking 08:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. J1459 11:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair 12:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep — RuneScape is a commercial online game. — RJH 18:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's a widely known game. Megan1967 22:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge back to a more general runescape page, wikipedia isn't gamefaqs--nixie 08:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
While I agree that Runescape is popular enough to merit inclusion, I'd prefer to see some more content and less lists of levels at which a certain skill (or rune) becomes availalable, as the latter is FAQ or manual material. As such, merge. Radiant! 10:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete, or merge into RuneScape any information of general interest not already there. I'm a gamer and was once slightly interested in RS when it was on paper and not yet online, but it isn't really notable in ways that reach outside the roleplaying subhobby. This level of detail isn't encyclopedic, as WP is not a gaming directory. I can't wait for the Ashlee Concert Simulation Module for RuneScape, nor for its article. Barno 16:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think if you can't write your vote without including some insult against another user, subtle or otherwise, your vote shouldn't count. Everyking 17:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - However, WP policy suggests more strongly that if you can't include the reason for your vote, as Everyking failed to do above, your vote won't count. Barno 17:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if Kingdom of Loathing creator isn't allowed to stay, then RuneScape's, gasp, runes should be speedied already. Grue 12:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as it has no independently verifiable references. If those can be found, keep - David Gerard 00:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
~Delete - too broad and vague. Could be in more categories. jozephb 13:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect or, if that's not workable, keep. -Sean Curtin 03:07, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think it needs a cleanup, and certainly improved, but it deserves to be a part of the information on runescape. The intial reasons for deletion has a problem as well, "This level of detail about an obscure' game is.."- Runescape is the largest online java game, and has more players online at a given moment then CounterStrike, and is among most well known and least obscure mmorpg's. Consider there are close to 10x more people playing it at this moment, then there are wikipedians with over a 1000 edits. MasterRune 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, i'm crossing out "obscure" in my rationale. However, regardless of the game's popularity, minutiae like these are just a drain on Wikipedia's resources. Grand Theft Auto 3 is at least as popular a game, but its article is very clean, concise, and encyclopedic. I love video games and have spent significant portions of my life playing and writing them, but i don't believe that emulating GameFAQs should be one of Wikipedia's goals. Foobaz·o< 23:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyre Empire

Hoax? Nonsense? Fiction? Anyway, there's only one Google hit for "Eyre Empire". Plus this article was created by a vandal. Rick K 06:23, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Foobaz·✐ 06:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that this article should be deleted, namely because it seems to be a fascinating part of history. I, too, did a google search, one for Truelove Eyre, and a number of websites came up. All members should google search for Truelove Eyre before they either vote to delete, lest wikipedia should be deprived of a very interesting historical entity. And, if google hits for the Eyre Empire are rare, that is probably because the entire thing went on within one family. I've been doing my homework, and there IS an Eyrecourt in Ireland. Go to yahoo.com, and search it. Then try google, and britannica. Tourists go there now. Add to that, there is a large inland body called, "Lake Eyre," in Australia. Deleting this article would be silly, and deprive students and history buffs of a topic that is not covered very often.
i dont know how to vote on this thing, but i agree w/the last person. That articles cool, its helping me with my paper. you should leave it up.
- Please note that both anonymous comments above were added by the same IP address, 68.18.24.191. Also, i reformatted the comments to make them easier to read, but did not alter the content. Foobaz·✐ 19:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - The comments would naturally use the same IP address, as they're coming from the same computer. I posted a comment here some time ago, as has my sister. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to delete this article, especially when there is such an abundance of outside reference for it. Go to google and look up Jehu Eyre. You have to search around a bit, but it's there. How does one vote not to delete? Also, look up, "Eyre Coat of Arms."
    - 68.18.24.191, if "there is such an abundance of outside reference for it," why didn't you cite them in the article instead of having everybody else search for it? Zzyzx11 20:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - The answer for that is simple: I did not write the article. However, I still stand by what I said; I'm not a history person in the sense that I don't enjoy it (though I do not quite a bit about it because of some wonderful teachers), yet this piqued my interest. My sister and I both have to report on a historical family (she's doing the Hapsburgs), and these people just seemed like a very fascinating bunch. Plus, there are about five different people who routinely use this computer, which means that when I have to do research, I need it FAST. Wikipedia has become my academic crutch, especially in terms of history. I've always liked it because it features articles on things that aren't always widely known. If I, a high school student, can find information on google to back this stuff up, then surely wikipedia can recognize said article's validity. Trust me, google, yahoo, it's there. Just do what I did and you can see these sources for yourself. I'll ask my friend about all of this...he is a real whiz with history.
        
        Funny, when I Google for "Truelove Eyre", I get zero hits. Care to point to a single website (created before today's date) that has a mention of him? Rick K 22:47, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
restarting the indentation
- Certainly. Go to YAHOO.COM (NOT GOOGLE) and type "Truelove Eyre" into the search bar. A list will come up. Numbers 1 and 5 give a history about the story surrounding this man and his family. Poke around the other websites there, because I've only had time to look at a few. This is all very exciting! I feel like a detective...but with history...kind of. 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
  - I found the Eyre Empire's blog! Foobaz·✐ 23:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Looks like even more of this nonsense. And when I did as suggested and went to yahoo, I still got zero hits -- [6]. RickK 23:58, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - Come on, you've got to be kidding. I don't know how much easier to make this; on the first page of the yahoo search are ten different websites. Did you actually go into any of them or just look at the titles? Here, this is the simplest way I know how to do this: http://eyres.home.texas.net/Eyrecrest.htm. I mean, heck, the other guy found something. Foobaz, you seem to know what you're doing. Go to yahoo and do what I wrote earlier. Be sure to actually go INTO 1. and 5. on the sites that pop up. By the way, an Eyre blog? I'll have to search around for more in that vein. 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
      - WHOOPS, SORRY!!! WRONG WEBSITE!!! THE REAL WEBSITE IS: http://eyres.home.texas.net/Eyrescrest.htm. GO TO THIS ONE, NOT THE ONE PREVIOUSLY LISTED!!! 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
        
        There is still nothing at the page indicated which supports any of the material in the article. I'm through with this, the hoaxing has wasted enough time. Rick K 00:20, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
        
        OH, MY, GOSH, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. I know why you didn't get any hits on yahoo: you weren't actually supposed to put the quotation marks into the search! Just enter in the name Truelove Eyre WITHOUT quotation marks. 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
        
        "Nothing at the page that supports anything in the article?" I suppose that the whole "legend of Truelove Eyre," thing wasn't in either article, right? 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)
Okay, okay. Google for truelove + eyre + "william the conqueror", that brings up some actual hits. No vote yet, but I just wanted to establish that this isn't completely a hoax. DS 03:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also attempted to follow the anon contributor's suggestions for verifying the content of this article. I have found a few datapoints at the perimeter and two blogs but not enough to convince me yet that this is verifiable. No vote yet but inclining strongly toward delete unless the author returns with a better citation of his/her sources. Rossami (talk) 07:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I got two Google hits for this but neither of them seemed related. For landholdings in Eire lasting some centuries to royalty related to William the Conqueror, I'd want something more verifiable. Capitalistroadster 08:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - suspicious, reminds me of various noble pretenders and other people who have bought nonexistent "coat of arms" from various sources. Although apparently innocent now, reminds me too much of claims of Alexis Brimeyer and Oscar Hartzell. Writer may think the information genuine, but I have my doubts. - Skysmith 10:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Skysmith, Delete. Radiant! 10:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Two kids and their semi-factual fantasies. -- RHaworth 11:49, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Keep: some of the websites behind it seem fairly genuine. And one of the blogs, imperialpress.blogspot.com, does offer a history section that positively identifies the link between William the Conqueror and Truelove Eyre through Edmund II. Go to the archives section, November of 2004, and read the article, "House of Eyre Came From House of Wessex." A number of other families established similar domains: the Angevins (not widely known), the Plantagenets (not widely known), the Hapbsburgs (not widely known among Americans), etc. Also, the Coat of Arms is real, that's on yahoo. History21 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

The claims on that page are not backed up by any references or sources at all except a brief mention of "newly unearthed records". That doesn't "positively identify" anything, and indeed makes this whole business look even less credible. Foobaz·✐ 14:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Tweak: as an (enthusiatic) student of medieval studies, I have come across similar articles in stories over the years. Most of what this article says is accurate. However, I would recommend something; while most historians confirm that Truelove Eyre did exist, some of his ACTIONS are a bit murky, said to have originated in legend. (There is a similar story that says Truelove knew King Richard the Lionheart, a sheer impossibility due to the fact that they lived in separate centuries). The author should clarify that while Truelove is widely acknowledged to have founded the Eyre Dynasty, the WAY in which he did it is still disputed. Also, some source citations wouldn't be a bad idea; you can find the stuff, but it's inconvenient to search. Other than that, keep it. It would be a shame to get rid of an article that deals with one of the very few things able to last through the Medieval, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial, and Modern Ages. 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

Delete. WP is not a geneology resource, and one of the few sources that has anything to say about the alleged "Truelove Eyre" notes that the story is not well-attested. HyperZonk^talk 18:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I stand by what I said yesterday, and what the two people there have said completely proves my point. The whole Truelove Eyre thing must be rooted in some fact, otherwise the family crest (which we've all established existed) wouldn't bear the leg symbol. I went to imperialpress and found it quite helpful. The fact that there even IS controversy at the site that Hyperzonk cited shows that there is some sort of historical basis for Truelove Eyre. I agree with the other ones. Aside from Truelove, we now for a fact that this family exists (especially as many of the links listed on THIS PAGE take readers to sites detailing Eyre descendants now living in the US). The article is a website about a rich and influential family called "Eyre." We now know that that family is a factual part of history. So, not counting the Truelove Eyre thing (which should be modified to reflect his mythical status), the article should stay. 68.18.24.191 (talk · contributions)

Also, the "Eireland," thing is true, and so is the claim of the Gaelic name, "Eire," for Ireland. That had to come from somewhere. This article offers a good explanation.

Delete. Not verifiable. Rhobite 21:02, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone with the ability to open a history textbook or type the name Truelove Eyre into yahoo can verify this as true. The fact that this is even a debate stuns me. I have never known such historical ineptitude on the part of wikipedians before. Edit the Truelove thing, keep the rest, move on. 68.18.28.36 (talk · contributions)

Delete unless actual references provided - I don't appreciate being insulted because the author can't be bothered to provide references. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, give the guy a break. It's not like historians have studied 1066 England much. Did anything important even happen back then? Rhobite 02:28, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Utter tripe. Codswallop, I tell you, codswallop. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enthusiatic Keep and Edit This is a good article dealing with historical fact and should not be trashed, but I annoyed by several things. First of all, the author mentions "Leroy Heller's descendants," yet fails to reference some of the most important among them. To begin with, Leroy's son, Stanley Heller, the chairman of a Philadelphia bank and presumably the rightful heir to a resurrected Eyre Empire (should that unlikely day ever come about), is entirely skipped over. This leads me to believe that the author had a less than full knowledge of the subject matter. Stanley Heller is a significant descendant and should be listed. Secondly, another of Leroy's granddaughters holds a high level position for CDC and another works for a Democratic senator. Why haven't these things been included? Anyone with enough knowledge about this, please edit the article, or I will. I say, ANYONE WITH ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE, because it's not a widely known subject except in some royalist and medieval historical circles. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to fix this because you'll just make it worse. Elizabeth 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

http://www.standard.net.au/~daneyre/Histeyre.htm There you go, read that. Elizabeth 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

Okay, I'm a registered Wiki user with hundreds of edits to my name. I have no vote on this issue yet; I'd just like to provide some actual Google hits here, so as to clarify that this is NOT NONSENSE. It may not be notable, but it's not nonsense, okay? Sheesh. Note that many of these are for "Truelove who was henceforth called Ayre/Eyre", or similar phrasings. [1] (http://www.standard.net.au/~daneyre/Histeyre.htm), [2] (http://www.last-names.net/surname.asp?surname=Ayres), [3] (http://www.vmb-collection.com/A&DPages/AandDP20.html), [4] (http://www.meddows-taylor.com/Eyre.htm), [5] (http://www.cholet.us/Family%20Tree%20Index%20Pages/ayres_tree.htm), [6] (http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/bucks/history/local/davis/davis15.txt) (a 100-year-old transcript which refers to "True Love" instead of "Truelove"), [7] (http://www.trueloves.info/history.html) (a history of the family name 'Truelove', and how it's associated with Eyre), and [8] (http://superjordans-home.com/MariahsAncestors/a23.htm). I'll grant that many of these have similar wording; this is apparently because they're all quoting the same centuries-old source. That source's reliability is another issue, of course. 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

If this is a hoax, the hoaxsters have put an enormous amount of work into it over a long, long, long time. The ineptness of the page's defendants shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether it's worthy of being kept or deleted.DS 14:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

Please note that everything above this and below GeorgeStepanek's vote was added by an anonymous user, 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions), the same IP who posted two other "votes" above. Thank you for providing sources, but they only establish the origin of a name, not the existence of an entire empire, or any of the other fantastic claims made in the article. Foobaz·✐ 20:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I'm annoyed that my comment from the VFD debate for Truelove Eyre was poached and transplanted into this debate (and done so ineptly, by someone who doesn't understand how WP allows us to sign our comments). DS 14:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enthusiatic Keep and Edit This is a good article dealing with historical fact and should not be trashed, but I annoyed by several things. First of all, the author mentions "Leroy Heller's descendants," yet fails to reference some of the most important among them. To begin with, Leroy's son, Stanley Heller, the chairman of a Philadelphia bank and presumably the rightful heir to a resurrected Eyre Empire (should that unlikely day ever come about), is entirely skipped over. This leads me to believe that the author had a less than full knowledge of the subject matter. Stanley Heller is a significant descendant and should be listed. Secondly, another of Leroy's granddaughters holds a high level position for CDC and another works for a Democratic senator. Why haven't these things been included? Anyone with enough knowledge about this, please edit the article, or I will. I say, ANYONE WITH ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE, because it's not a widely known subject except in some royalist and medieval historical circles. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to fix this because you'll just make it worse. History21 (talk · contributions)

CZAR TO MAKE TRIP TO THE CAPITOL; FEBRUARY 16, 2005(OLD CALENDAR) The Imperial Compound is confirming today that Czar Arthur is planning on making a visit to Washington, D.C. this summer, where he will be given a VIP tour of the Capitol and will meet with several senators in the Senate Dining Room for luncheon. The czar's second cousin, Princess Alicia (a granddaughter of Senior Dowager Czar Leroy and a niece of Dowager Czarina Marie), who has overseen a Senate office for the last twelve years, will be host to her royal relation. Proponents of the Eyre Empire see it as an enormous step in the right direction. It will be Czar Arthur's first official trip since being crowned head of the resurrected financial dynasty in December. It will also serve as the first meeting between an Eyre monarch and a government representative since the spring of 1929, a milestone that many say is representative of the family's rejuvenation. Dowager Grand Duchess Augusta, mother to Grand Duchess Anna and Czarevna Mildred, was thrilled to hear the news. "This is the best thing that could have possibly happened," she said. It has also confirmed many in their thoughts that the empire is rising once more. “It’s like everything is happening at once,” said Grand Duchess Anna, referring to other recent events within the family (see articles below). The Imperial Compound has promised to keep the Imperial Press updated on these events.

Take a look at that. From imperialpress.blogspot.com. I've left a comment. It seems...hmm... 68.18.28.36 (talk · contributions)

Isn't that your own blog? The one you tried to spam on weblog? Please stop pretending that you're all these new people. Rhobite 22:22, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, that is my blog. I, for one, do not appreciate insinuations that I am A. trying to spam. or, B., writing under false pretenses. Not once have I tried to log in under two different names. In fact, I haven't provided any. And the above passage "I am a wiki user," was contributed by someone other than myself at a different area of this site who had the kindness to let me copy and paste. The moronic insistence at this sight (with the exception of some people, whom, I can assure you, are not myself in disguise) to deny historical fact because the majority of the history came from a murky time just makes me laugh to myself at the hypocrisy of the "contributors," who, in this case, have become, "detractors." Grow up and learn to properly use a computer. Also, a dictionary wouldn't help; you misspelled, "You're." comment by anonymous user 68.18.28.36

If you continue to change other people's votes and comments on this page, you'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is a pretty serious rule around here. Also, personal attacks are not allowed. Rhobite 01:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Robyn, if I find out that you are in any way responsible for this article, I will personally throw you down a deep, deep well where you will never be able to attend another Drama Club meeting again! Bwa ha ha ha! Just kidding. Please, though, don't exploit my family history with this "article." Love you, E 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

Whomever is continuing to post that ridiculous, "Imperial Press," rubbish on this page, please stop. I have already had to remove it once from this site. It is completely unrelated to the dioscussion at hand and constitutes nothing more than a blatant and shameless attempt at spamming. Have the academic integrity to at least keep the argument based somewhat in reality. 168.184.90.11 (talk · contributions)

I just replaced it again. We frown on the removal of other people's comments, whether they're ridiculous or not. I also just signed all the anonymous posts. Hopefully this makes the discussion easier to follow. Foobaz·✐ 16:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

comment. I don't know what to think of the article but I do know that the name Éire come from Irish mythology, it is a variation on the name of the celtic goddess Ériu. The main square in Galway is called Eyre square but I don't know if it's named after a family or if it's another variation on Ériu. -- Lochaber 14:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete as obvious hoax by sockpuppeting vandal. DreamGuy 21:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete this awful mess... Nick04 23:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep new edits now talk about the Eyre FAMILY, not the Eyre EMPIRE. The Eyre Family did exist, while the Eyre Empire is entirely fictitious. Change title to, "Eyre Family." References provided prove the existence of Jehu Eyre as an actual person. This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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] Hannerism

Only one Google hit for this word, and it doesn't match this definition. Created by a vandal, probably a hoax. Rick K 06:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete a successful hoax, since we'll all waste more manhours voting on it than it took to enter it. Do the math.--Wetman 06:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No we won't. I speedied it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 09:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fashionistas

Unreleased movie. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete future events as unverifiable. Rossami (talk) 07:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nor verifiable. Let the movie be released first. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 05:16, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
Delete, crystal ball gazing. Current contents won't be useful if and when it's released. —Korath (Talk) 07:15, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World Society of Linguistic Research and Preservation

Nonnotable society. Established yesterday (February 26, 2005). External links yield 403 (permission denied). Zero google hits. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Foobaz·✐ 06:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I concur with Wile E. Heresiarch. Zzyzx11 20:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Promotion for a new venture, not notable. jni 06:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. World Society of Linguistic Research and Preservation gets zero google hits; WSLRP gets six, none relevent; Linguawiki gets eight. Six articles on the wiki. Clearly non-notable. —Korath (Talk) 07:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tally: I count 7 delete, 2 keep by editors whose votes count (Mrmiscellanious and Randy Johnston), 2 keep by editors with less than 50 edits (G-RaZoR and Dinero) and some anonymous votes. Ignoring the anonymous votes and the votes by editors with less than 50 edits, the votes are 7-2 to delete. I'll go delete Scopetech now. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scopetech

Website promo. Launched last month by some television personalities. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Foobaz·✐ 06:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. (Probably self-) promotion. -- RHaworth 08:07, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Delete. Smells like self-promotion. Zzyzx11 20:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is not a Self Promo, I am the one who added it, and I am showing off a Tech site created by former On-Air Talents. They did not add it themselves.
- G-RaZoR blanked this vfd and inserted the above as his ninth edit. —Korath (Talk) 07:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertisement, non-notable. —Korath (Talk) 07:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete, notable exchange of tech and general information in forums. www.danielwalters.net
Do Not Delete, Brand new exchange of current Tech information.
Do Not Delete, It's iffy right now. I'd say keep it up for now, but think about describing it better and making it sound less like an ad. My two cents. --Mrmiscellanious 23:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Is notable, not self-promotion. --Randy 01:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 02:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 02:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete, This is Wikipedia, we're trying to create a compendium of all human knowledge. Scpetech is something people might want or need to look up and we should keep the information we have on them. It's not like the article is making it sound any better than it really is. -- Dinero 03:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Kessler

Personal promo. No evidence of notability. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Foobaz·✐ 06:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone comes up with notable content. Zzyzx11 20:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep: I vote to keep this article, because the man did found a financial company and he does contribute to Forbes. He may not be terribly well-known, but he sounds like an important figure of corporate America. history21
- Note: user's first edit.

Abstain: "Andy Kessler" + Forbes gets over 500 hits on Google. That seems kindof low; substituting with "Andrew" gives about 80 results. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, there's plenty of guys like that. Radiant! 10:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough. —Brim 17:27, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish notability. — Gwalla | Talk 04:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sprodzoom

28 Google hits. Not notable. I reccomend it be deleted. Foobaz·✐ 06:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It actually has some currency among SF Fandom in the UK, enough that I recognized the word depite not ever having been in the UK. Sort of a cross between Mornington Crescent and drunkenness (but I repeat myself). There ought to at least be some way to merge it into a good article about classic Faanish pursuits (well, if it still existed, that is). --Ray Radlein 05:28, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Triangular theory of love. —Korath (Talk) 22:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consummate love

Not an encyclopedia article, not a wiktionary article. Rick K 07:46, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can't decide if it's original research or merely a dicdef. --Carnildo 07:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary, i think it has potential as a dicdef. Foobaz·✐ 08:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I didn't realize there was so much other related information in Wikipedia already, like Kappa says below. Foobaz·✐ 22:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm down with a merge and redirect too. Foobaz·✐ 02:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

REWRITTEN. It's a concept from the triangular theory of love, so I replaced the original "off the top of the head" sounding definition with something more researched. Keep this or merge it with triangular theory of love. Kappa 10:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 22:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but needs expansion. Tygar 06:39, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Triangular theory of love as it stands all the articles arising from that page are stubby definitions only applicable to that theory--nixie 04:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, add stub template. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:09, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep with rewrites from Kappa. —RaD Man (talk) 04:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment, I don't really see the need for three articles explaning the various aspects of one man's simple theory. In fact it probably makes a better article to have them all on one page.--nixie 06:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Feel free to merge them yourself Kappa 08:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Psychology jargon/term of art. The triangular theory of love isn't so notable that we need multiple articles to cover its special terminology. "Triangular theory of love"+"Robert Sternberg" has only 364 Google hits. "Consummate love"+"triangular" gets 406 hits. If this article were longer, I'd say redirect it in order to maintain the history, but since it is two sentences, it should just be deleted, and someone can expand Triangular theory of love. Anyway, aspects of the theory are handled better in context, rather than having to click around all over the place to piece it together from multiple stubby little articles. Why the insistence on breaking so many topics into multiple stubby articles? There isn't a prize for racking up the article count, is there? --BM 22:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If we do it your way, no-one will expand triangular theory of love, they will just put another stub at consummate love, and it will be deleted again. Kappa 06:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've merged this and the other off-shoot to triangular theory of love- there in no reason not to make this redirect there now--nixie 01:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to triangular theory of love. The exact same text (sans links) is already there, so no merging necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 04:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- LOL "no merging necessary". Kappa 05:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Hey, I didn't see nixie's comment. Gimme a break. At any rate, since the text has been merged, deletion is no longer an option. — Gwalla | Talk 20:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BodyTalk

Pure advertising of non-notable product, with no potential for useful information. I vote to delete. Foobaz·✐ 08:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like an ad. Zzyzx11 20:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable ad. DaveTheRed 01:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. —Korath (Talk) 07:25, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted through the copyvio process. —Korath (Talk) 22:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Campion School Mumbai

High school in Mumbai. Encyclopedic nature debatable. Currently NPOV. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 09:56, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Copyvio of [7]. Tagged and blanked Kappa 11:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, school cruft, copyright violation. Megan1967 22:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. DaveTheRed 23:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a school. --Centauri 10:32, 2 Mar 2005
Has been marked copyvio - David Gerard 00:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete ComCat 02:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to complete the transwiki process (which ends with the deletion of the Wikipedia article). Rossami (talk) 23:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of quotations about dance

This page has been moved over to Wikiquote and there's a link there from the main Dance article. I can't see any reason for retaining this. Bryan 10:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Del, although I wouldn't call this 'deletion'; It is a move of the content into different storage. Mikkalai 18:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no article. Megan1967 22:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2000s in music

[edit] Bloggertizing

Neologism, vanity (term claimed to be coined by the article's creator) and false (Google shows the term being used by someone else on Sept. 16, 2004 [8]). --Plek 11:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete..."the ironing is delicious", as they say. Nick04 14:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone provides more notable content. Zzyzx11 20:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Megan1967 22:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Maybe for WikIDictionary. Tygar 08:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Giano 20:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (already userfied during voting, will delete redirect from main namespace). jni 20:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tennerage

I think the author was trying to make a user page, correct me if I'm wrong, and that's he's not making an article instead. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please do not attempt mistake this for a user page, rather, think of it as a person's foray into creating the abstract meaning for a new word.
- The author does not wish to infringe on any rules enforced by the wikipedia organisation, however, and will not discourage article-removal for consistency's sake.
- Please note: the author also dislikes having to refer to himself in nameless third person. It is purely for anonymity.
  -- tennerage 9:58PM, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)
  - Then it only gives me more reason to submit this for deletion. Wikipedia's articles are for notable people only. If you wish you keep this page, I suggest you become a Wikipedian, and place this on your user page, which cannot face deletion. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I have to admit, from its inception I thought I didn't have a great chance; however there is the possibility that I will become notable from being one of the who's who on Wikipedia dot com. If that isn't notoreity on the Internet, then I have to beg the question: what is? (intended as rhetoric). I'm also a bit frazzled over the seemingly inconsistent formatting that certain tags seem to induce, such as line breaks and unordered list tags (your statements merely format themselves, while I have to be finicky). -- tennerage 10:09PM, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)
      - The easiest thing for you to do is go into edit for this "article", copy everything, start your user page, edit it, and paste everything there. The photos will move just as well. Then I can do whatever with this remnant. I then assume at that point that you will be a contributor to this site in general knowledge, and not trying to make yourself a notable one. For me, my user page states I am here, and states my various edits and creations, but I am nothing special; I just do what I like to do. Also note that even if you became notable somehow, you wouldn't be able to write your own article, because it would natually be filled with POV. Now if you don't mind it's nearly 6 am, and I must rest. Others will come to express their opinions soon. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        
        Well this is a predicament. I hope somebody with a good sense of.. acceptance.. appreciates my side of the farce.--Tennerage 11:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - farce is one way of putting it. Nevermind, all's well that ends well. Nick04 13:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. --BM 14:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Obvious deletion material. I took the liberty of userfying the page by using the "Move" function. Does anybody have any objections to that? / Uppland 14:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That is what I was hoping to do. Teach me how to do that. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Use the "Move" tab, but put "User:" in front of the name. Only works if the user hasn't already created a User page, of course. Niteowlneils 14:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note. Since the article has been moved to the user's namespace, I assume that we aren't voting for whether the User:Tennerage page should be deleted. I therefore took the liberty of removing the {{vfd}} tag from that page. I wasn't able to place a new one on the redirect page, however — something to do with how the page is instantiated. — Asbestos | Talk 23:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since the article has been moved into the User namespace, the leftover redirect can be speedy-deleted under case R2. I recommend we wait 24 hours to confirm that this is non-controversial. Rossami (talk) 08:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What's controversial is the implication that I'm vain! It was application of my artistic license for educational and/or entertainment purposes. As far as 'deleting the redirect' goes, I wouldn't discourage you from leaving it there as a figurehead, so to speak, of the event :). Keep in mind the future likelihood of the 'word' ever officially being defined and/or incorporated in something encyclopaedia-worthy! --Tennerage 13:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Note "vanity" on vfd has a different meaning than most verbal usages. Wikipedia is not intended to serve "entertainment purposes". Only ten displayed hits for tennerage. Not encyclopedic. Also note there is no "Wikipedia dot com"--it redirects to "dot org", as WP only has non-profit motives. Niteowlneils 14:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Userfy (as has been done) with no redirect. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Virgin Mobile USA. —Korath (Talk) 22:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VirginXL

Advertising. Author also created *MTV, listed below. --Plek 11:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, not advertising, product from notable company. Kappa 11:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair 12:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, doesn't read like advertising to me, notable company. Nick04 13:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Virgin Mobile, as it is one of their many services. Radiant! 10:24, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't merit a separate article and shouldn't be a redirect. VirginXL is a marketing name for the faster of two data services offered by Virgin Mobile USA, currently accessible from only one phone. The other data service is VirginXtras, which also doesn't merit a separate article. Virgin Mobile USA itself is only a one paragraph article. There is also List of Virgin Mobile USA phones. Virgin Mobile, which describes the British parent company, is only one paragraph too. Someone has gone to town creating a whole series of short one paragraph articles on Virgin Mobile. All the content in all of these articles would be no more than 3 paragraphs total, which would say little more than that Virgin Group has started a cell phone service in the UK, US, and Australia, in partnership with various networks and content providers, like MTV. Is there a prize or something for upping the article count? --BM 13:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Second choice merge redir. Mostly agree with what User:BM says, except that leaving redirs at all these one-offs reduces chances of re-creation of these articles. Same for VirginXtras--keep it all in the same article until size constraints dictate otherwise. Artificially upping article count is NOT what Wikipedia is about. I try to assume good faith, but the anon contrib's contribs to date are exclusively to promote Virgin Mobile. Hopefully this is just a case of someone trying to "share" something they recently decided was a 'good deal'. Niteowlneils 13:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect or delete outright. Obvious attempt to hijack Wikipedia for advertsing and promotion. --Calton 00:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Oh look, someone has - David Gerard 00:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that 66.31.151.24 (talk · contributions) eventually changed this article into a redirect to MTV, which does not seem to be the consensus here. I am thus reverting back to the pre-VfD stage. If this is wrong, please feel free to let me know or revert my changes. --Death phoenix 23:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] *MTV

Advertising. Author also created VirginXL, listed above. --Plek 11:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Probably from a newby who doesn't know wikipedia's style, I doubt that the guys from MTV are going around spamming wikipedia, and if they were it would look a bit more sophisticated. Kappa 11:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "More sophisticated"? How can you say that? There's nothing inherently subtle or sophisticated about marketing people -- look at last year's Super Bowl commercials. --Calton 00:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- and cleanup. Longhair 11:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, doesn't read like advertising to me. Nick04 13:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Virgin Mobile. Does this really merit its own article when its part of the Virgin Mobile service? I can't see it expanding much. Megan1967 23:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's an MTV product, not a Virgin Mobile product. Rick K 23:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Virgin Mobile--nixie 08:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a Virgin Mobile USA phone. Am I doing something wrong? — JIP | Talk 09:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not doing anything wrong. It's just that the overzealous deletionists seem to be out tonight... - Eric Herboso 10:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A three sentence article that says that for the Virgin Mobile USA phone, MTV is offering a service with music news, alerts, some games, and access to the "MTV community" via text messaging. This factoid does not merit a separate article, and if it is of interest to anyone can be edited into the MTV or Virgin Mobile articles. --BM 12:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge/redir to either MTV or Virgin Mobile. Just some random co-marketing campaign like SBC Yahoo!. Here today, gone tomorrow. Nice to see that Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith apparently have been suspended 'tonight'. :/ Niteowlneils 13:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No offense intended, of course. Just consider me another inclusionist attempting to keep info on obscure topics alive... - Eric Herboso 02:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with RickK, our latest convert to inclusionism. —RaD Man (talk) 02:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge, concur with Megan. Radiant! 08:28, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect or delete outright. It's pure advertising. --Calton 00:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economics superstition

I can almost understand what the author is trying to say, but not quite. "Economics is related to human life.It is expected to be a science with logic. But many times human behaviour is not based on proved logics . Groups of people or individual do have various superstitions ..." Etcetera. I'm not sure this qualifies as patent nonsense, so I'm listing it here instead of tagging it CSD. --Plek 11:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, the contributor has misunderstood the purpose of wikipedia. This article is original research with no references, and wikipedia articles are not discussion forums. Kappa 12:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Incoherent nonsense. jni 06:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Confused original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Economic superstitions exist, they are part of behavioral economics, and they deserve their own article, even if this one doesn't seem really to tackle economic superstitions, which is an everyday thing for consumers, investors, produceres, etc, but superstitions related to the choice between econonomic theories. --Pgreenfinch 08:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- the final graf is just an invitation to editorializing. The grafs prior to that are unept summaries of behavioral economics, which already has an article. --Christofurio 13:51, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Shift & link to behavioral economics, Currently behavioral economicspage's shows link for individual biases & social biases but does not have a created page yet for the same.

[edit] Wang Gungwu

The entire article is 'Wang Gungwu, historian, educator.', and that's it. Longhair 12:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Delete -- Longhair 12:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Since the article has been somewhat improved, I withdraw my earlier vote to delete. -- Longhair | Talk 14:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The topic seems encyclopedic enough, judging from what I find with a Google search (biography; his "select publications since 2000" alone take up more than 4 pages (PDF); a library has been named after him), but the article is pointless in its present state. No vote yet. I hope somebody will improve the article. / Uppland 14:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Expand -- important figure in Chinese diaspora studies. --BD2412 18:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand, assuming someone will improve it as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 20:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 22:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand. My limited Google research indicates that he was a significant figure in Singaporean cultural life publishing the first collection of Singaporean poetry. [9]
- The above remark by User:Capitalistroadster.
Concur, keep. Radiant! 10:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Miss Pippa 23:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, important academic from Singapore--nixie 04:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 20:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 05:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- keep. many articles + once a vice president of HKU should do. -wshun 10:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Most professors write many articles. Does he pass the average professor test? Gamaliel 17:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - I believe so. Maybe I should mention that a vice president of HKU is indeed the head of HKU, as the president of HKU is the governor, a figurehead only. wshun 04:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quintessential Existential Dimensionality

Looks like either original research or complete nonsense, no Google hits, no references. --Lexor|Talk 13:05, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Lexor|Talk 13:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No references. Zzyzx11 21:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Same nonsense contributor as 62.255.32.13 Meggar 05:14, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
Delete. Original nonsense. Miss Pippa 23:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This guy is either a crank or just a vandal. Deco 06:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Timecube is abovegod, but this isn't well-known like Gene Ray's rants. — Gwalla | Talk 04:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2000s music groups

You can't really characterise a decade that has yet to pass. Even if you could, the page is currently redundant, because a) we already have very good "year in music" pages - eg, 2000 in music, and b) we already have a List of bands. This article really just combines information from those two articles, and adds some inherent POV. Nick04 10:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nick04 13:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep on the basis that there are similar articles for 1990s music groups, 1980s music groups, etc. which have not been nominated for deletion. The decade is already half-over, so to have a list-in-progress is certainly feasible. I don't see where this is POV, incidentally. Suggestion: perhaps the various "xxxx's music groups" should become categories?23skidoo 15:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:, perhaps POV is a bad word choice on my part. I think what I mean to say is that in its current form the article presents a rather one sided view of music from 2000 onwards. It mentions little of rap / hiphop, which IMO is far more dominant now than trance/techno, but the article seems to state otherwise. Similarly, it treats localalised music trends as global - "There was a notable return to raw garage rock'n'roll with groups such as The Strokes, The White Stripes and The Kings of Leon"...except that in many other countries, these bands have not been heard of at all. Ditto for "the charts are full of". If it is kept as an article, then it needs to be worked on the regional aspects. I agree that a catagory would be better, although on the other hand it would still overlap a lot with List of bands Nick04 15:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Folks can always add names. I'm not into the rap/hiphop scene so I can't do so myself, and it could be argued that electronica, noise, and other forms of music are even more dominant than rap and hiphop (without getting all the headlines), so there's probably plenty of expansion to be done here. That's sort of why a category might make more sense than trying to just make a straight list, since some bands (say, Rolling Stones as a good example) would need to be listed multiple times. 23skidoo 19:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Part of the problem is that it's a list of music groups; while there are exceptions, hip hop tends more toward solo artists. Bearcat 07:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and add a {{current}} template. — RJH 18:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The "current" tag isn't really meant for that purpose. That tag is meant for rapidly developing stories where edit conflicts are very likely. An example would be the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Carrp | Talk 18:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Okay. Still, the issue here appears to be the editorial content at the top of the page, which possibly lacks historical perspective. The list should still be valid, and provides a suitable place to register notable groups over the course of the decade. I see no reason to delete this page; merely edit and add a warning at the top. — RJH 20:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not useful, perhaps later when the decade has finished. Megan1967 22:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You can't write a historical article about the current decade. Article can be recreated in 2010. Radiant! 10:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep ... the decade may not be over, but there are slews of new artists coming out in the decade. I don't see why we would have to wait for the decade to be over at all. It's not like we are predicting what artists existed in 2009, and the article is not made to say what artists were significant within the decade (that would be a personal opinion anyway, and would sure to be controversial). The article is made to say what artists emerged within the decade, and that information is pretty clear and easy to obtain. HOWEVER, this article probably needs clean-up. There are certain flaws with this article... it does ignore the other genres aside from rock and pop at the moment. The intro paragraph at the beginning should be altered or deleted, because that is where it is trying to predict things. It would be good to get this article out somehow to garner a bit more attention... probably included as a "See also" link within various artists of this decade (especially of the genres outside of rock/pop). But of course, we should keep in mind that this article states "groups" and not individual artists per se (so it may be suggested to change the "groups" to "artists" to make it more broad as well?). An "incomplete list" stub thingy (or something similar and more appropriate) should probably be added as well. Shadowolf 06:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If this is to be a list of all (or even all notable) music groups for the decade, then it should still be deleted, as a decade is a very arbitrary distinction when grouping bands. Rather, they should be grouped by genre (as they are), or possibly country. If it's about influences, then it's a predictory article, as you cannot verify that something has been an influence until some time has passed. Radiant! 08:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, then I guess it can be renamed to rock/pop groups of 2000 or something along those lines then, if we're taking on a genre distinction. That'd mean the other decades would have to go through such change as well. But influence is of course not the emphasis here at all, but rather what groups have come out and reached a level of significant fame within the decade, I believe. I don't find it too arbitrary at all. If an artist has a label, and are a fairly large topic of discussion among fans, they should be listed. You could say the same thing about bands of other decades - anyone could debate about the importance of any band even to this day ... but the main fact remains as to what decade they broke through to garner some attention. Even a one-hit wonder has some significance. If I were to say "this band was quite majorly popular only within a three year period", I think that's quite enough to keep them in. Of course, some bands might be complicated to group specifically...especially those of that come out within the late 90's but broke through in the 2000s. For those, there might be some debate as to where they should belong (or maybe they could go under both decades). Or we could set some rules to this... either to list the artists based on when they were formed, or by when their first album was released, or so on. But I find no real individual judgements in listing a band that emerged from a certain decade... the fact is that they existed within those times. If we were to wait until 2010... we would still be listing these very artists here as to have emerged within this decade, because they simply just did. It's not like the list is comprised of local bands that are still trying to find a label or anything, after all. Shadowolf 09:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep the list of the band at least, bearing in mind that some drastic expansion is needed, to cover all genres. However, I think the introductory paragraph should be deleted, since it is biased, is written ungracefully, and would be best written with hindsight. Jdcooper 22:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as we have the "xxxx's in music" pages. --Neigel von Teighen 22:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But the "xxxx's in music" are events and releases for the most part. People like to refer to bands as from a certain decade (ie, "they're an 80's band"), and this keeps it organized. Making a list of bands emerging within a very specific year WOULD be controversial, because the founding of a band, first album, and breakthrough album/song are all ... point of view-ish, and can really be unnecessary information if say, a band had 5 albums but their 4th one was the one that garnered national attention away from the local scene. Shadowolf 00:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fatally flawed. Text at top should be removed entirely. Article has major bias towards white, guitar-based rock groups. The criteria for inclusion are extremely unclear - is the article to include acts which merely formed in the 00s, or which became popular in the 00s, or what? Modest Mouse formed in 1993, The White Stripes formed in 1997, and both are in the article; underachievers such as The Distillers and Zwan who nonetheless formed in the 00s are in the article; whereas U2, Madonna, R.E.M. and Kylie Minogue - who all date back to the 1980s, have sold millions of records in the 00s and remain musically and culturally influential - do not appear. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think we should delete it though, mostly because there are the previous decades. But I do think, as you mention, that we should clean up these articles to be more based on certain conditions. This is probably my proposal to this article: (1) I think basing these articles (meaning every decade that is included) on the release of an artists first album or so would be good. Doing it based on when they are formed isn't a good idea IMHO, 'cause there are years ahead after formation where they were unknown and without a record deal, obviously leaving them quite trivial and unimportant for those years. And doing it based on influence and importance would be PoV-ish (others might disagree that the Distillers and Zwan are significant and not "underachievers") (2) Delete first paragraph, and replace it with a note on what conditions the groups in the list shall be based on (being by release of their first album or whatever) (3) Move some of the artists to where they belong (like Modest Mouse), and do so for the others as well (that are in other decades, because there are a couple I noticed suffer the same problem of being in the "wrong" decade. (Still, there are some artists that are hard to categorize, since they come in the late decade...since for example, White Stripes released their first album in 1999... I personally feel it's fine to keep them in the 2000's, although we should mention this criteria in the note as well if we do this). I don't believe it is necessary to keep artists from another decade that are still doing well now (like U2, Cure, etc), within here. People refer to them as a band by the decade they started in, and it would keep the list to a minimal as well. (4-?) The only thing I'm not sure of is if we should keep it as rock/pop/metal/etc specifically (and thus, rename the article titles). Or if we should have other genres like rap and techno in here as well. We could definately divide them up into their respectful genres. (5-?) Also, unsure, since you mention Madonna and Kylie Minogue - should we rename this to "music artists" so as to include solo artists? Especially among rap and R&B, there are A LOT of solo artists (at least among the mainstream), which I think might be a reason for the lack of such artists included. /// Anyway, if this article stays, I think we should set such guidelines to this article. If we are to keep the articles of the other decades, this one will most certainly be revived in the future anyway (and will probably cause the same controversies it does now), so I think it would be good to set everything straight now instead. That's my idea anyway. Shadowolf 03:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why the 2000s need to be treated differently than any prior decade. Just stick a {{dynamiclist}} or {{listdev}} tag on it and move on. It's hardly as if this is unexpandable. Bearcat 07:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. POV is not a reason to delete. Incompleteness is not a reason to delete. Even duplication of content is not a reason to delete, but rather to merge and redirect. I can't see any valid reason to delete. -Rholton 13:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful article. Grue 19:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was a consensus to keep. I count 2 keep, 2 merge, 2 delete. In this near-no-consensus case, the 2 merge votes can count as a keep-equivalent, therefore this is 4 keep and 2 delete. Death phoenix 00:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science fact

What's there 'ain't bad', but probably doesn't deserve an entire article to itself. Merge into Science Fiction? -- Longhair 13:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So why not just merge it? — RJH 18:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
either Keep and expand or merge. Megan1967 22:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, put in WikiDictionary Tygar 06:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with science fiction. —Brim 17:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I see no reason either to delete it or to merge it with its ...contrary. --Pgreenfinch 07:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing to salvage here. Gamaliel 07:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Joey (sitcom). —Korath (Talk) 22:51, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of guest stars on Joey

I don't see any reason why this should be a separate article from Joey (sitcom). The Joey article is not very long and there's plenty of space to list the six guest stars there. It's very inconvenient to require readers to go to a separate article. As it stands, this article is non-notable and unencyclopedic. Delete Carrp | Talk 16:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge — RJH 18:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge. --Sn0wflake 19:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep. Since this article contains useful content that isn't in the main article, you should have merged it yourself or used a {{merge}} tag, not Vfd. Kappa 19:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Zzyzx11 21:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, trivial fork. Megan1967 22:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not nearly as important as People who have performed on Ashlee Simpson albums. Rick K 23:35, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. I've just (sort of) done so; possibly the article could remain as a redirect or (the beauty of a Wiki) an inserted section, so {{:List of guest stars on Joey}} could appear in the article. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 00:17, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Fair play; I'm the author, and I was just following the pattern for Friends and List of guest stars on Friends. It's probably too early for that—perhaps split when there's a coupla hundred there, eh? :) —Neuropedia 03:58, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
Delete without merge. ComCat 02:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ode to a Butterfly (song)

This article is a pointless stub (10 words) on a song by an artist who doesn't even have his own article. It should be deleted. --Moochocoogle 16:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not very likely someboy will ever bother expanding it. --Sn0wflake 19:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: unnotable song, contentless article. I guess that makes it a double delete. -R. fiend 20:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not providing any notable content. Zzyzx11 21:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, song cruft. Megan1967 22:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 100% Näsblod

Listed as a speedy but not a speedy candidate. No vote from me. Dbiv 17:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 17:54, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not providing any notable content. Zzyzx11 21:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notabe, possible band vanity. Megan1967 22:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is not exactly vanity, but a notable example of non-notability. Yet I can't help but feel for these guys, just look at them! :-) Wipe 00:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless there's more content. Best of luck to them. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delte. The funny thing is that their name sounds strangly familliar to me. Maybe I have heard of them some time before or maybe I'm just imagining thigs. :) Jeltz talk 16:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be another band called simply Näsblod. I'm sure there's others with "100%" or "Nosebleed" in their names... Wipe 09:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

category:VFD voting This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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] Perttu Kivilaakso

Vanity. I first wrote a rather humorous story to go with this, but decided against it. Inter\^Echo 18:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, a nice effort, I am sure, but it's not encyclopedic content. --Sn0wflake 19:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am talking about the wording and composition, not about the musician himself. --Sn0wflake 19:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Inappropriate style for an encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 21:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Yawn, whatever, crap (wheres my morning coffee...). jni 06:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, vanity, and it's even boring to read. — JIP | Talk 07:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Bryant

More vanity. Inter\^Echo 18:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 62.24.88.190 vandalized my vote. --Sn0wflake 23:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Mikemsd 20:55, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 21:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Chad Bryant is an asshole. OSJ 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedily deleted. The content is solely a personal attack. How can it be classified as vanity boggles my mind. Any normal article is welcome, but such kind of contribitions cannot be tolerated. Mikkalai 22:06, 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 delete. Note: page was already deleted, so I am cleaning up this VfD article. Death phoenix 00:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "A Heinlein Trio"

"Any material that was here has now been merged into Robert A. Heinlein."

I could just be hopelessly confused, but AFAICT there was a vote to merge this into Robert A. Heinlein. Whatever content there was in this page is now gone, and has apparently been merged there, so isn't it time to delete this page now?--Bcrowell 18:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The page has block compressed revisions, so it's undeletable, but I've tagged it as pending. Snowspinner 18:31, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
- There does seem to be some confusion here, of several sorts. Firstly there has never been a page at "A Heinlein Trio". Secondly, A Heinlein Trio, the page under discussion both here and on Talk:A Heinlein Trio, has significant history, and can't be simply deleted if the text has been copied elsewhere. That's why merge and delete is not a valid vote. Andrewa 20:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - How on earth is merge and delete not a valid vote? Merge the current content, delete the page... this is... fairly sensible... Yes. The history gets lost. Hence merge and delete being a different vote from merge and redirect. Snowspinner 20:18, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - Merge and delete might be a valid vote, but no-one used it in this case. Kappa 21:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - (Sigh) Yes, that's another puzzling thing. The decision seems to have been merge and redirect anyway, so how does deletion even arise? But see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion and a new page I've created at Wikipedia talk:Merge and delete. Andrewa 23:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment: Merge and delete is not an allowable vote in almost all circumstances because it violates the attribution requirement of GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Merge and Delete. Comment 2: When nominating a page for the second time, please do not just start editing the archive of the prior discussion. Also, please do not transclude it in. Link it instead. In this case, see the prior discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Heinlein Trio. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment 3: The redirect has been restored (not sure by whom). Challenges to the redirect decision should be taken to "Redirects for deletion". Rossami (talk) 04:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- seems to have been deleted now. --Henrygb 19:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: More confusion. Exactly what are we voting on here? The article at "A Heinlein Trio" has never existed. The redirect at A Heinlein Trio (which I restored, in accordance with the previous VfD vote) is not a suitable candidate for VfD, it should go to Wikipedia:redirects for deletion. No vote until I know what I'm voting for! Andrewa 20:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I vote to delete this VfD page, personally. Snowspinner 22:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Removing it from VfD is not a bad idea IMO, but I think the text should be archived somewhere, in the hope of ~~avoiding~~ minimising the tendency to reinvent the wheel where some of the issues raised are concerned. Andrewa 23:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VirginXtras

Tagged as a speedy for advertising. This is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. No vote from me. Dbiv 18:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Currently it reads like an ad. If someone cleans it up and provides notable content, I'll be inclined to keep it. Otherwise it deserves to be deleted. Zzyzx11 21:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Should also be noted that VirginXtras is a global brand, used in Britain, Autralia, and Canada...so it's certainly notable enough. Nick04 21:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since it's an add for a product, merge with main company page. Radiant! 10:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Merge all Virgin Mobile content to main VM page until size demands breakouts. Marketing campaigns by themselves are not encyclopedic. Second choice, Delete. Niteowlneils 14:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, merge back to Virgin Mobile--nixie 04:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acroamatics

Dictionary def. RJFJR 18:24, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, dicdef. --Sn0wflake 19:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary, dictionary definition. Andrew pmk 19:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. Someone thought this would be funny. --BD2412 20:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. Megan1967 22:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary Grutness|^hello? 06:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Move to WiktionaryBluemoose 11:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary--VivaEmilyDavies 22:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary 500LL 21:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki Lectonar 09:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Landsburg

Was speedy deletion for vanity page, but that is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Andrew pmk 18:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Andrew pmk 18:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Vanity --Mikemsd 20:59, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pure vanity. Zzyzx11 21:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Newman

Non-notable activist. A Google search for "Marc Newman" AND "Socialist Alternative" (the group the article says he worked with) returns only 28 hits [10]. A search for the other group he worked for returns only 15 hits [11]. Delete. Carrp | Talk 18:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable (any notable content is completely subsumed under Socialist Alternative) Fifelfoo 23:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no verifiability - David Gerard 00:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mighty Morphin Alien rangers Ano 3.5

A badly written and very incomplete episode guide; the article's language is Brazilian Portuguese. Not Wikipedia material, even if it's translated and expanded. --Sn0wflake 19:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Since I can't read it, not vote for me -- unless it is never translated, then it's an automatic delete. Zzyzx11 21:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's entirely stuff like this: "Our heroes work on a new project to help the Alien Rangers. Then Rito and Goldar show up and the Alien Rangers have to defend their young friends." (Nossos heróis trabalham em um novo projeto para ajudar os Alien Rangers. Então Rito e Goldar aparecem e os Alien Rangers devem defender seus jovens amigos.) I don't see a need for a full translation. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - no useful content - there isn't an episode guide article for any version of Power Rangers. kelvSYC 03:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corby Ziesman

Not notable, should be deleted. Thue | talk 20:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This student should come back when he's accomplished something. Delete. Radiant! 10:20, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrinopets

This page was created by a persistent vandal. The topic of the article is real, but seems non-notable; the website in question is currently looking for a place to host the site, and complaining about their lack of a $300 server. I would think a remotely popular website could muster that kind of change. 2600 google hits, but that seems likely to be inflated, given that this is a message board/website. Meelar (talk) 20:41, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Alexa says "not in top 100000" and nothing esle significant about it - TB 20:43, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Delete. I believe this squarely falls below the threshhold of notability. Its inclusion here appears to be part of an ongoing astroturfing effort. -- John Fader 20:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable Nick04 21:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KTXT 88.1 FM

~~Contains nothing but promotion, and does not establish notability. Delete.~~ Actually, it makes sense that being licensed makes a station notable, because there are a limited number of such stations. I withdraw my vote. RSpeer 21:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, station promo. Megan1967 22:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, all licensed radio stations are notable. Move page to either KTXT or KTXT-FM. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Rhymeless. Postdlf 05:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Tygar 06:42, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Too limited in broadcast scope, and I don't think overly local stations are particularly notable. Merge to the relevant university, as many Us have some kind of radio. Radiant! 10:19, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep — RJH 17:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move page to a better title as previously suggested. - Lucky 6.9 20:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep --SPUI (talk) 02:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, finite. Note that it has already been moved to KTXT-FM. —Korath (Talk) 07:29, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boys chase girls

Seems like either vanity (Josh Jackson), silly nonsense, or an article of dubious truth. Therefore, delete. Bratsche 21:17, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity? Silly nonsense? Dubious truth? All of the above. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete It is a mass array of silly nonsense. B.S. 21:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Lovely nonsense, but nonsense. --EnSamulili 22:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. While the creator obviously had some creative ideas on his mind, such nonsense and lack of resource to back up any "facts" present does not belong in Wikipedia.CryptoStorm 22:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic nonsense. -- The Anome 22:58, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 23:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We'll chase the boys and girls away. Miss Pippa 00:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bless. Jdcooper 23:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Although I am tempted to suggest a redirect to Gender role. --L33tminion | (talk) 15:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nitroba

Not notable, has not released their first album yet. Delete, and then recreate it if they ever get notable. Thue | talk 21:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 22:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Two months is hardly enough time for a band to become notable enough to enter the Wikipedia. --Sn0wflake 23:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 23:12, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miami U

Reason I recommended this article for VFD: This article is an unnecessary disambiguation. First off, the University of Miami is not known as "Miami U", it is known as UM, UofM or Miami informally. Only Miami University is known informally as Miami U. Secondly, both the University of Miami and Miami University articles have headers at the top of the page directing readers to the other article. This disambiguation page is inaccurate and unnecessary. —ExplorerCDT 21:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per my statement above. —ExplorerCDT 21:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ExplorerCDT is correct as to the nicknames of U of Miami. Mike H 21:45, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, if Miami University is known by this name, then just redirect this to there. Why on earth is this on VFD? sjorford →•← 22:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Because I recommended it. Do we need redirects for nicknames? I doubt people would look for nicknames if they are looking for information on either institution. So, for the time being, it's here, so deal with it without sanctimonious complaining. —ExplorerCDT 22:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~ abstain, and hope for fewer misguided nominations. Kappa 22:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your self-righteous commentary. Voting would have been just fine, thank you. —ExplorerCDT 22:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry for the self-righteousness, but I dislike my time being wasted. Kappa 22:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I gotta jump in on this one; if your time is being wasted by this VFD, then don't vote in it. Mike H 22:52, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
      - I was thinking about other potential vfds, not this one, which is already here. Kappa 23:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        
        If that was the case, you should have kept your smugness to yourself. —ExplorerCDT 01:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        
        PS - Thanks Mike for jumping in. —ExplorerCDT 01:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Nicknames usually are. — Asbestos | Talk 22:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Agree with sjorford; redirect to Miami University and let the disambig there take care of anyone looking for University of Miami —Neuropedia 22:55, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Redirect, and in the name of all that is good don't feed the troll. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Redir~~. Yes, WP most certainly redirects from nicknames: Wikipedia:Redirect#What_do_we_use_redirects_for.3F--5.1 if they were numbered. Niteowlneils 05:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as disamb. According to multiple sources, such as [12] "Miami U" is part of the titles of at least two University of Miami team songs, so it doesn't seem as much of a stretch as I thot that people could be looking for either. Niteowlneils 06:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Niteowlneils' findings. Redirects and disambiguation pages are cheap. Rossami (talk) 08:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No need for a redirect; otherwise we'd have "U. of" articles for every university. i.e. Harvard U redirect to Harvard University. —Brim 17:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Users are not unlikely to search for a university by a popular nickname - redirecting keeps the site user-friendly. --BD2412 20:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:30, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and move on. —RaD Man (talk) 02:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary. Gamaliel 02:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
redirect --SPUI (talk) 02:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Redirects are cheap. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas jerome

Vanity (plus bad grammar). "Thomas Jerome"+gulf war+ 32 hits, +gaseous explosions = 0 hits on Google. Therefore, Delete Bratsche 21:41, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. Jonathunder 22:17, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Delete: Preposterous Vanity. I wish I could have found something fun to do as a kid in 1991, like fight in the Gulf War at age 10. —ExplorerCDT 22:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ridiculous. —Neuropedia 22:59, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Entertaining vanity. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. —Brim 17:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect (book)

Delete. Looks like a vanity page - I find absolutely no references to it on Google except for what has been written here, and certainly nothing to indicate its alleged cult status. --khaosworks 04:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Vanity from a high school creative writing class. When J.M. Wax gets an advance, maybe we'll reconsider. —ExplorerCDT 22:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Explorer, delete. Radiant! 10:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - concur with above. Nick04 19:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Save - I don't know where you looked, but I found numerous hits on this one; not just copies of Wikipedia, either. I've heard of it everywhere: chatrooms, forums, blogs... lots of personal pages. By the way, my username is NOT associated with it. _mich 16:12, 3 March 2005 (UTC)

This is my search result. [13]. That's one hit, identical to the writeup. What's yours? Also, a look at http://jkco.net/about.html - which is on your User page, reveals that you, aka Mich, aka Jeff M. W. have the same initials as J.M. Wax. "Perfect" is also on that site. Nice try. --khaosworks 00:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I see two. But you have to really trust a website called "attackofthetoys.com" —ExplorerCDT 00:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Save - I can attest to the validity of this book. It is being distributed on the internet in PDF form. I was referred to this story by a friend who emailed it to me. It is short and amusing, but valid none the less. If you want to be content nazis, head over to everything2. jeremy108
- Comment/Warning: This is user's first edit. Possible sockpuppet. —ExplorerCDT 16:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Um..no Sorry for not being as cool as you, but I'm not s "sockpuppet", which from context I assume to be a fake account.jeremy108
    - partially correct...a fake account usually used to bolster someone's failing agenda (i.e. keeping a vanity article from getting deleted by "attesting to the validity of the book."). QED. As for not being cool like me, I wish I could s stutter when I say s sockpuppet. —ExplorerCDT 05:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Save - What's wrong with a little publicity for someone trying to distrubte their work? The description may be a bit vain, but certainly not worth deleting. pdf available at p9r.net/perfect/perfect.pdf .
- Comment/Warning: This is user's first edit (Mrglass). Possible sockpuppet. —ExplorerCDT 16:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Terminate with Extreme Prejudice (Delete). Agree with XCDT, terribly written drivel on a personal webpage. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not worth the bandwidth it chews up. Oh, the vanity. —PtonJew06 16:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Perfect (book) where he admits that it's a vanity page. -khaosworks 18:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete for vandalizing this page and block the Mrglass sockpuppet for doing it. Ditto the J. M. Wax "article." - Lucky 6.9 22:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete absent any evidence that this is anything but vanity. Gamaliel 22:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete - get rid of it and be done with the thing! Although I have found it quite amusing to watch people I know attempt to save this way, the suspense is killing me. _mich 13:33, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- NOTE: this counteracts the vote User:Michfreak placed above, which I will strike out. —ExplorerCDT 19:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kesara

One line dictdef plus link to author's personal homepage. — Asbestos | Talk 22:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable dictionary definition. Megan1967 23:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, useless dicdef. --Sn0wflake 23:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete This should be a speedy delete, since more time is being spent deleting it than it took to create it. --Wetman 09:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef, not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, what Wetman said. Sigh. —Korath (Talk) 07:34, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_February_27_dfe8.html"