Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 25

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. Stormie 10:45, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Component force

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. A "component force" is simply what you would expect from the words "component" and "force". It has no special meaning in mechanics. The example does not provide any particular insight. Art Carlson 20:05, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

  • Delete. Author seems to be thinking of net force, but since this article is just an example, I'm not sure it warrants merging. --InShaneee 20:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Component force" appears to be used infrequently to mean a component of a force vector, but that wouldn't merit a separate article, and the existing article is about something else. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps this page should be merged with Static equilibrium instead, since the image is useful for something. —Brim 18:28, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 10:45, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bradbury class starship

This is a starship created by Star Trek fans at the site http://www.trekships.org/ It is not an official part of the Star Trek universe and should probably be deleted.

TomTheHand 00:14, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-canonical, and even a lot of the canonical ships don't need their own articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sorry but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and this is it. I doubt that this would warrent a place in a Star Trek encyclopedia let alone Wikipedia. Rje 01:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-canon. 23skidoo 03:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete K1Bond007 04:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even those of us who think fancruft belongs on Wikipedia should at least agree it should be real fancruft. Szyslak 06:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, I'm a fan and even I think this is beyond fancruft. Yeeesh. ÅrУnT†∈ 08:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruftcruft. For what it's worth, it's a very pretty design. --TenOfAllTrades 17:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. GRider\talk 18:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jasoncart 11:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ganymead 03:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT (for GFDL reasons). Stormie 10:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erotica (madonna)

Already exists as Erotica (Madonna album). I have already merged relevant information. - RoyBoy [∞] 00:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I trust you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant/duplicate article. Megan1967 00:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe redir so we don't have to go thru this again? Niteowlneils 01:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is duplicate information. I'd suggest Erotica (Madonna) as a reidrect, not this uncapitalised version. Rje 02:24, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap. —RaD Man (talk) 05:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. If you've merged two articles together, you must redirect, otherwise the edit history is lost, violating the GFDL. sjorford:// 09:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. GRider\talk 18:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Sjorford is absolutely correct. Deleting this would violate the GFDL. — Gwalla | Talk 20:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Erotica (Madonna) (deleting redirect) and redirect from there to preserve history. —Korath (Talk) 23:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is this of violating the GFDL? Until aware that this is true (I'll look, but if you can provide me a cite, that'd be appreciated) then I see no point in maintaining this page as a fork. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • When I find an article that duplicates an already existing article, I just merge and/or redirect right away. I don't think it's generally necessary to VfD them. Bearcat 04:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding GFDL, don't be silly. Apart from the first sentence, there is nothing in this "article" except for a track listing and a couple of other lists. Information is not copyrightable, only a unique expression of it. In this case, there is no problem moving the information, and deleting the article and its history. Anyway, Delete. (unsigned vote by BM)
  • Er...why not just redirect? john k 19:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Aquanimo

Company selling products and services to French tropical fish aquarium owners.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep with a strong recommendation to merge it into Minamata disease. Rossami (talk) 01:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese democracy

This seems to be an article in the middle of nowhere and "what links here" gives no clue. If someone can find out what this is, great. Otherwise, it seems rather pointless. --Woohookitty 01:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • It's basically summarizing the book it mentions. Might fit best in Minamata disease, probably after trimming. Kappa 08:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, essentially duplicates what can already be found in Minamata disease. The article title is misleading. Megan1967 01:35, 29 Jan 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. Stormie 10:51, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Koyama

Non-notable vanity. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 01:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Rje 02:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- vanity article. Longhair 10:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Carole a 09:51, 28 Jan 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. Stormie 10:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sluggin' Contest

Non-notable (non-existent?) and unencyclopedic, with no google results for any of the basic terms in the article. Reads like a joke (BJAODN?). Night Gyr 02:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - huh? Cdc 05:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Are we to have an article under every region's local nickname for a drunken fight in a car park (something which I am certain was not invented a mere three years ago in the U.S.)? Delete. Uncle G 14:02, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:42, 26 Jan 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. Stormie 10:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gniazdowski

Non-notable genealogy. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 02:55, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Smoddy | ειπετε 21:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

keep it

  • Uh, no. Sorry, Anonymous One. Delete it. - Lucky 6.9 23:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Mozzerati 00:19, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, genealogy. Megan1967 01:36, 29 Jan 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. Stormie 10:53, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CLiCC

Non-notable high school computer club. Six displayed hits for "CLiCC" "chung ling" or "Chung Ling High School Computer Club" (most hits for just CLiCC are for a compiler). Niteowlneils 03:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Cdc 05:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local concerns, not encyclopedic. jni 06:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable club. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non notable. Carole a 09:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 01:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heasty

Not notable. Rhobite 03:44, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism: "The word was first coined on January 24, 2005". —Korath (Talk) 07:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete according to the article, two people have used the term for a few days. No way this is notable. ÅrУnT†∈ 08:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete admitted neologism. What's the record for article about the youngest neologism? This (~24 hours) is probably pretty close. --Plutor 17:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Rje 20:03, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as I already tried to do. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 21:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's a speedy candidate it's a borderline one, so I VfD'd it. Rhobite 22:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, neologism. Megan1967 01:37, 29 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 01:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Educrat

Dicdef, with an inherently NPOV title and (I'd argue) inherently NPOV definition. Can't imagine how this could be expanded. --Calton 04:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Polemical dicdef; no potential to become NPOV. Szyslak 05:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Strong delete - Could perhaps have some relevance, but I'm sure this isn't the title. Homeschooling covers this far more adequately. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The term has some circulation, although since it's just "education bureaucrat" smashed together there's not much to say about it. Delete this rant, anyway. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poverty pimp, while similarly perjoritive, survived VfD because it was in common use and could be defined without ranting. Delete pending someone dempnstrates both. jdb ❋ 04:48, 7 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 ambiguous. Votes to keep and delete are about even (several votes being discounted). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep. Rossami (talk) 02:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vertu

In its present form, I would argue that this is non-encyclopaedic. What does "for the rich" mean in this context, anyway? Deb 17:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Found this with a tag and vfd sub-page, but hadn't been added here--procedural. Current content is "Vertu is a company which sells mobile phones for the rich." (up to 20k US$, apparently). No vote. Niteowlneils 04:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete platform for an external link. —Korath (Talk) 07:21, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Substubs like these should be developed, not deleted. It doesn't appear promotional to me (Vertu is a company owned by Nokia. Products seem to be intended for rich people indeed). 203.177.36.83
  • Delete. Advertising. Not a company of encyclopedic significance. Products not of encyclopedic significance. Could redirect to Chaucer (obscure joke, inserted for Geogre's benefit). Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if I'm reading this right, a company with almost five MILLION Google hits is up for VfD!? Now I obviously didn't check that each one was relevant to the phone, but just about all on the first few pages seem to be. Even besides that, we have not only an article on, say, Nokia, but many of Nokia's individual phones as well. I see no reason why Nokia upmarket subbrand Vertu shouldn't get one too. Just needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Uh, look at what most of those hits are. It's honestly quite difficult to do a Google test on this one, unless your international language skills are better than mine. Vertu is just "Virtue" in French and maybe other languages, and it's also the name of at least one rock band, etc. etc. Furthermore, there's something very weird. If you do a search on the exact phrase "Vertu Signature", which is the name of one of their products and likely to return only relevant hits (admittedly only in those countries where that IS the name of the product), I get 36,000 hits, but "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 220 already displayed." I frankly don't know what to make of this. If I do a search in Google GROUPS, which website managers don't bother to try to manipulate, for most topics one gets something like 1/4 to 1/10 the number of hits on the Web. Here, "Vertu Signature" gets ONLY 9 hits, "Vertu Ascent" gets ONLY 8 hits. In contrast, if we search on exact phrase "Nokia 6620" in Groups, we get 86 hits. I respect the Google test, but it is sometimes very difficult to apply and this is one of those times. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: not an article, WP != yellow pages. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Major brand from Nokia. Massive waste of money in my view, but definitely notable as a product. --JuntungWu 09:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An obvious and strong keep. GRider\talk 18:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to say delete. The article says nothing, and we have too much Nokia spam already. -R. fiend 20:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant subcompany and brand name of worlds largest mobile phone manufacturer. jni 08:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Notable. —RaD Man (talk) 18:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Mikkalai 07:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 05:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merits no more than a one sentence mention in the article on Nokia. If hyper-expensive cell phones made from luxury materials suddenly become a big status symbol -- then it deserves two sentences in the article on Nokia. --BM 15:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I've just had a drive past their fairly impressive headquarters, and I vote keep purely on the basis of the building: I've often wondered what it contained! Noisy | Talk 17:38, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • You realize, I suppose, that companies often pay to have their sign on an office building of which they may only occupy a few floors. You can't assume that a company "with an impressive office building" actually owns it, or even leases most of it. --BM 17:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and I learned a few years ago that companies pay trucking companies to put their names and products on trucks... a truck that says Budweiser isn't necessarily full of Budweiser. Shocking, isn't it? What can you believe in? Thank goodness Betty Crocker is real... Dpbsmith (talk) 22:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand. This is a brand new factory-come-offices (less than two years old—I watched them building it); sole occupancy; with serious security fencing on its own site. (The site used to be army barracks in Church Crookham.) It is impressive. I don't have a digital camera to illustrate the article, I'm afraid, but it certainly fits the image of the website. Noisy | Talk 22:43, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Nokia? It's worth it to say something about it, but I don't think it deserves its own article. TomTheHand 21:01, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Mar·ka·ci 18:48, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Rossami (talk) 02:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Miller (rugby player)

  • Looks like a vanity page, especially considering that the same author created Southland Rugby a few minutes later. I think the latter could be expanded to a full article though. A quick googling doesn't reveal any notable career. --sitharus 04:36, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No, Andrew Miller played rugby for Japan in the 2003 Rugby Union World Cup. I am the person who created both pages today. I happen to like Japanese rugby. Andrew Miller is an excellent player who now plays for Southland, and I am not him.--Historian 06:43, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Played World Cup Rugby plus seven years as a professional rugby player. A Google search on "Andrew Miller" Japan Rugby [1] gets over 1,000 results. These include this [2] on the World Cup fixture between Japan and Fiji. He also played a season with the Canterbury Crusaders but after being dropped in favour of Andrew Mehrtens decided to go to the Japanese leagues.Capitalistroadster 09:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a search for "Andrew Miller" +rugby brings 4,650 results. Seems notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Hardly vanity. GRider\talk 18:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, he's not the most famous rugby player on the planet, but he is an international and thus has some notability. This is clearly not vanity. Rje 18:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 11:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep OK, after more than a quick search it looks valid, and the article has been fleshed out more. I apologise for the hasty judgement. --sitharus 07:41, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snirpism

Non-notable prank or neologism no one knows. Zero hits. Niteowlneils 05:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete message-board vanity at best, nonsensical hoax at worst. —Korath (Talk) 07:23, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, Neologism, Hoax. Choose your flavour. ÅrУnT†∈ 08:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Warcraft III or Snirp (if and when there is an article there), otherwise delete. Megan1967 01:41, 29 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of popular misconceptions

  • A list like this is not quite encyclopedic. Allissonn 05:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. In general I don't mind trivia on Wikipedia, but this list of disconnected factoids doesn't serve any real encyclopedic purpose. This information belongs in the articles on each topic discussed. Szyslak 06:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. A list of popular misconceptions is important. --82.194.62.16 14:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User:82.194.62.16 and User:82.194.62.17 are the only editors of this article. Delete. A short list of random factoids isn't particularly useful. Put the information into the appropriate articles where it might do some good. --TenOfAllTrades 17:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for being too vaguely defined. Lists on WP are fine, as long as they have some sort of focus to them. If this was split into List of popular misconceptions in evolution, List of popular misconceptions in astronomy and so on, then maybe it would be okay. sjorford:// 15:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete To unfocused to really be useful for anything. Instead of sjorford's idea, I'd think these things would only belong on the individual pages relevant to the topic. --InShaneee 16:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trivia is good for adding spice to individual articles, but this list is useless. Might be better if it had a full explanation of why these misconceptions exist and what the truth behind them really is. But even then, it would be better rolled into the individual articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is simply too vague an article to ever be useful. Rje 18:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This would be too vague and catch-all to be useful -- even if not for the fact that some of these "misconceptions" are the truth and the "truth" is the misconception. (ISO-comes-from-the-Greek-for-equal, I'm looking at you.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The basis of a fascinating, informative article.--Centauri 22:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be interesting, but useful. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • informative = useful --Centauri 03:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Far too broad, with a lot of room for POV and ambiguity as to what constitutes a misconception. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • List of popular misconceptions is no more broad, POV, or ambiguous than List of people widely considered to be eccentric. --82.194.62.17 00:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I've never considered the "We have X so why delete Y?" argument to have any validity. X is a separate issue, lets judge Y on its merits alone. I've actually considered putting List of people widely considered to be eccentric up on VfD, but I'm somewhat more in favor of keeping quasi-encyclopedic material that's well written. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 05:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually List of people widely considered to be eccentric was already put up on VfD, and there was opposition. --82.194.62.17 06:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • List of people widely considered eccentric has survived at least two VfDs on the grounds that it's "inherently non-NPOV." The big difference between List of popular misconceptions and List of people widely considered to be eccentric is that the latter list has a clear purpose and subject: it's a list of people who, for whatever reason, have been labeled "eccentric." Something like, say, List of interesting people would be as unencyclopedic and pointless as this article. Szyslak 06:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hopeless POV. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Several of them aren't specific enough to debate logically. Others strike me as true (thus not misconceptions). Others strike me as not "popular". None are attributed. Those that may meet the criteria of the page are not refuted with any useful information. The "popular misconceptions" that are popular and misconceptions should be moved into articles about their subjects. --Plutor 16:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, actually I agree with Centauri on this. If we can have far more trivial music and song lists on Wikipedia, I see nothing wrong in having this list. True, POV needs cleanup but I feel this idea is far more worthwhile than say "List of Songs with No Lyrics". Megan1967 23:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that it's no worse than XYZ-other bad list is not, to me, enough justification to keep. The intent of the list is ill-defined. The listed "misconceptions" are not sourced or explained. (For example, who holds this misconception?) I suppose you theoretically could clean up this page but I see no value to doing so. Delete. Rossami (talk) 01:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I was using it to illustrate my point. I have in the past tended to vote against lists because I really see no justification for them (I am a supporter of categories rather than lists). But all things considered the role of the encyclopaedia is to be informative and as accurate as possible. As I said there is POV in the article but so long as it is cleaned up and expanded (sourced or explained as you say), I have no problems with this list existing albeit not in its present form. Megan1967 00:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for the above reasons. --68.163.221.85 01:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Users only edits are to this section.
      • So this user was driven to start participating in Wikipedia because of this contraversial VfD. That doesn't make this user's vote any less valid. --82.194.62.16 05:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia. DJ Clayworth 05:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just a bunch of random stuff. - RedWordSmith 06:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Idiotic. --BM 11:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This sort of detail is what makes encyclopedias useful. --209.122.160.124 13:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This user has a history of vandalism. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 23:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another impossible to maintain POV list. Jayjg (TALK) 21:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article has no focus. The facts (assuming they really are all facts) would be of better use within their related articles. Joyous 03:15, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you mean this article has no focus? The focus is to expose popular misconceptions. This is very powerful because a person can read the list of popular misconceptions to correct any misconceptions they have. Because of this article, the number of misconceptions in existance will gradually decrease. --82.194.62.17 05:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Potentially useful. Cerceole|(talk) 03:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just random stuff with no organization or support. Who holds these misconceptions and why? What is the truth? I'd say rewrite, but I don't think there's anything here to base a rewrite on. TomTheHand 10:07, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Some of the misconceptions already say what the truth is. It will be filled in for the rest through the wiki process if this article is given a chance. --209.122.160.124 16:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. Yuckfoo 05:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Far, far too broad a subject to be treated adequately in one article. —Korath (Talk) 06:34, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. More like an email forward than an encyclopedia article. —tregoweth 19:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain: I'd like a similar article but the current incarnation is rather bad. violet/riga (t) 23:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cdc 05:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 09:46, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's absolutely useless. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of informative: it is neither actionable nor interesting. A list of popular misconceptions would be useful if it provided (1) evidence that the statement is widely believed, and (2) evidence of what the truth is. The current list does neither. --Angr 13:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inaccurate; piecemeal original research. One problem with these kind of lists is that each entry is just someone's unsourced opinion. The format makes it unlikely that any particular item will go through the wiki vetting/NPOV-ification process, and the "article" just becomes a disreputable holding area for inaccurate POV in the Wikipedia. Two thirds of the current list is likely incorrect: these are not popular misconceptions, or not misconceptions at all. --BM 15:01, 30 Jan 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.

My count was 13 clear delete, 5 keep (however one of those was discounted), 1 transwiki (discounted because I don't believe it meets their criteria for acceptance) and 1 merge. Rossami (talk) 02:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Stelnick

Non-notable. Probably a copyvio. The picture surely is. RickK 06:14, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Pretty interesting to a lot of people. The story has been featured on Fark, Good Morning America, and the AP. Not at all a copyright violation! The picture is from the article on which I own the copyright and am donating to wikipedia. The pictures from the article itself were used with permission. Foodmarket 06:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you absolutely sure the permission given to you by some third party to use those images in your own article in your website extends to re-licensing them under GFDL license (or similar free license) required to upload them to Wikipedia? I'm not a copyright expert, but my understanding is that mere use permission is not enough. jni 06:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local news items are not encyclopedic. I haven't checked, but maybe Wikinews would be interested in this. jni 06:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikinews. Based on what I can remember, they are happy to accept local news. Mgm|(talk) 10:06, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Woman eats cheeseburger." Well, at least it's a new variation on "dog bites man". The copyright violation problems alone would make me vote "Delete and rewrite from scratch". However, the utter unimportance of the subject strengthens that to a simple Delete. Come back when the Guinness Book of Records recognises it. Uncle G 13:38, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Merge this notable cheeseburger eateress (well, as notable as they come) with Eating contest or something. There was a similar challenge in a Simpsons episode, which makes me think it may be an aspect of American popular culture worth writing an article about. It would be a shame losing this image, provided Foodmarket really has miss Stelnick's permission to use it on Wikipedia. ;-) / up+land 15:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, cheeseburger eating or not, it doesnt seem notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 01:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Local news? Where were you guys when this was racing around the Internet and on TV? Not only does Kate give permission for the photo to be on wikipedia, she actually edited an earlier version of the article... she changed her birthdate to the correct date. check under article Kate stelnick (lower case S) Foodmarket 04:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I certainly hadn't seen this anywhere else before. In any case it is not the type of thing that is considered "encyclopedic" in Wikipedia, but if you click on the red link in my vote above (or here) and write an article on the more general subject of eating contests – and judging from your webpage you are probably qualified to do so – you can use the image and mention this particular challenge as an example. I look forward to reading the article. / up+land 08:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Prior to the redirect, I see just you and two anonymous editors (neither of which can be proven to be Kate Stelnick) in the history for Kate stelnick. I also note the changes to Burger and Cheeseburger. How many duplicates of this are we going to have? Uncle G 19:22, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Delete: contest winners not automatically notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If indeed the above claim is proven correct - that she has edited the article - then it should also be deleted on the grounds of vanity. Megan1967 01:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • We do not delete articles on such a basis. In that case any article on anybody would be subject to deletion if the person they're written about edited them. Everyking 01:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah but we're not talking about just anyone. If indeed she edited the article about herself, for herself, that is still a form of vanity. Userpages exempt of course, but this isn't a userpage. Megan1967 01:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, apparently she's a world record holder of some sort. Everyking 19:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not a world record. It's only the first person to have eaten the special 6-pound hamburger at this one particular restaurant. RickK 05:55, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If she's created an account, it could be moved to her user space but I don't believe this meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies necessary to support an article in the main encyclopedia space. Rossami (talk) 01:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps merge into an article on the eatery in question. - SimonP 05:35, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • The eatery is no more desrving of an article than she is. RickK 05:55, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • How does it _hurt_ Wikipedia to have information on Kate and her record? It is a world record in that several professional eaters have failed to consume this hamburger whereas Kate has succeeded. This is the "4-minute-mile" of competitive eating. Although I agree that Wiki needs a larger article on competitive eating and its events, for now featuring this young woman adds to the knowledge-base available to our readers. Google returns 12,000 results for her name, which is hardly a common moniker. Isn't that a tad too many results for Wikipedia to be silent? Foodmarket 15:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That's the wrong question. The question to answer is "How does it help Wikipedia?". And the answer is that it doesn't. And, as both I and RickK have pointed out, this is not a record. As I said, come back when the Guinness Book of Records recognises it (which it does not right now). Uncle G 13:24, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Regarding UncleG's questions, I am new to Wikipedia but have read that when creating a new article, one should take steps to avoid it becoming an un-linked orphan. Was it inappropriate to link back to the article in related articles? About Kate's editing of the page, trace the IP -- it goes right to her dormitory in the College of New Jersey. So I guess you can say it could be _any_ TCNJ student living on campus but you can take my word for it, it's her. Foodmarket 15:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of all knowledge. RickK 20:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Was it inappropriate to link back to the article in related articles? — That's not what you did, so that question is not relevant. You repeated virtually the entire content of this article in both of the other two. At best, it should have been a "see also". Uncle G 13:24, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
    • trace the IP — The fact that you know the IP address of "her dormitory in the College of New Jersey" is arousing my suspicions. Uncle G 13:24, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Well, which criteria for deletion does it meet? I would vote to delete if she was entirely non-notable, but she has a sufficient claim to notability, in my opinion. Everyking 20:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Maybe put an external reference link to the story from the burger article? Jtalledo 01:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Lord no, she's not significant enough to warrant mention in a general article. Everyking 01:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the result of this is to delete, don't forget to remove the dangling hyperlinks in burger and cheeseburger. Uncle G 13:24, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, along with links to it. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records (and even they probably won't cover this). Hmmm, #2 google hit for the name is at www.foodmarket.com . Self-promotion? Niteowlneils 18:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • From the Guinness World Records web site: Guinness World Records DO NOT accept gluttony records. Uncle G 20:25, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Self promotion? I happened to do the article on it, noticed wikipedia didnt have it, attempted to add my first article to your encyclopedia. I don't control my page-rank on Google. UncleG and RickK -- you should visit www.ifoce.com . Can wikipedia afford to ignore an entire sport? Foodmarket 18:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, yeah, you can influence your google page rank, by making other sites link to your site, as you seem to have done here. Niteowlneils 19:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Can wikipedia afford to ignore an entire sport? — Again, an irrelevant question. There's no evidence that this promotional gimmick by one restaurant was anything to do with sport. And it's Kate Stelnick that we are deciding whether to delete here. If you want to make that question relevant, write the eating contests article that up+land suggested. Uncle G 20:25, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
      • Of course, since this was not an eating competition, it would not be appropriate to include this person in an article on eating contests. RickK 21:47, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • Somebody has created a stub on eating contests now, including a couple of lines about this type of challenge as part of the, umm, culture of competitive eating. It appears the International Federation of Competitive Eating[3] has already had a Wikipedia article for a while. Whatever... the whole thing is certainly no more absurd or silly than fake wrestling which is generously covered in Wikipedia. / up+land 08:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. Yuckfoo 05:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (or transwiki to Wikinews, if they want it). She's had her fifteen minutes of fame. —Korath (Talk) 06:37, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-NPOV. — Brim 09:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps merge into another article.  The Steve  19:23, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Uncle G and RickK said. Mattley 14:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cheesy promotional stunt. It could be mentioned in Eating contest, but I'm not sure it is notable enough even for that, since this just a challenge issued by one completely unnotable restaurant. People making pigs of themselves isn't news, but this one is young and pretty. --BM 15:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not really about her at all; and the record she is supposed to have broken doesn't seem to be accredited or official, even assuming that she didn't slip some of the tomatoes and gherkins and what not into her bra. She must have had greasy, foul-smelling skin for days afterwards. I would be fascinated to learn about her bowel movements in the week that followed, in terms of frequency, mass, consistency and buoyancy. Mum is the name of a band from Iceland. My middle name is Mark. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It sounds like you've got some research to do. Everyking 22:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Brim, where is the non-neutral point-of-view? The article is sparse and doesn't glorify what happened. Foodmarket 17:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian National Flag Association

POV rant. Copyvio? RickK 07:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • I would suggest Keep and clean up. I'm sure that the Australian National Flag Association [4] is notable enough to have an article on it. However, the article as it stands is a POV rant. I would clean it up but commitments for Australia Day tomorrow (ironically enough) will limit my time availability until Monday or Tuesday. I will either clean it up then or alternatively recreate it from a red link and I wouldn't blame anyone for voting to delete the article as it stands. Capitalistroadster 10:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Preemptive thanks to Capitalistroadster for doing his part in making Wikipedia a better resource. GRider\talk 18:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. However, I'm going to make it a stub. I could not find the exact site the text is from, but it screams "press release". So just to make sure, I'm making it a stub. --Woohookitty 20:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This organization has been widely quoted in the Australian media for many years.--Centauri 02:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The organization is notable as one of the two well-known lobby organizations on the issue. Keep. Uncle G 12:37, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • 'keep Yuckfoo 05:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a long discussion under Australian flag of arguments for and against retaining the current flag. The two "organizations" that are involved in this issue can be mentioned in that context. An article for the Australian flag, plus one for each of two groups arguing about the design of the flag, is two too many. --BM 15:35, 30 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 02:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber laundering

"net-smurfing" makes it sound like a joke, but the rest seems to make it original research. RickK 07:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • "Smurfing" is a common term for "structuring a deposit" in small transactions for money laundering. See smurf (crime) for details. No vote yet. jni 07:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. VfD tag was removed by User:212.118.7.29 at 07:23, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC). [5] -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 07:42, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Merge any useful information into money laundering. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 07:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 07:14, 28 Jan 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. 02:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhere south

Non-notable band. If this is all that can be said about it, it doesn't deserve an article. RickK 08:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Hoary 09:10, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rather difficult to google based on the name, but appears to be completely non-notable. GRider\talk 18:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:17, 26 Jan 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 sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for resolution. Rossami (talk) 02:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual frustration

  1. Nonsense.
  2. A how-to.
  3. Original research. RickK
  • How-to. Original research. Also, I suspect, an attempt at humor. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll edit this right down to a coherent article later today. If I do not get round to it, then delete it. --Oldak Quill 08:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't edit the article. It's a Copyvio. I've sent it to copyright problems. Uncle G 13:24, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 19:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 4 delete, 2 merge, 4 keep.

[edit] Smithsonian conspiracy

Rant. RickK 09:27, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Total lack of NPOV, probably a copy-vio, but could be rescued, it's a valid conspiracy theory. San de Berg 09:28, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but fix. This is a reasonable topic for an article, even if this initial version is pretty bad. --Zero 10:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --- not fixable. Someone else may want to start again from scratch, but deleting this won't prevent that anyway. --Christofurio 14:39, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs a major cleanup and expansion, the page needs to be retitled. Conspiracy could be inferred as a POV. Megan1967 01:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: irremediable POV. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable as to the truth of the theory. No evidence yet provided as being a well-known conspiracy theory. No source citations. The well-known conspiracy theory is the exact opposite. It has been claimed that the Smithsonian minimized the Wright Brothers' contributions and exaggerated those of Samuel Langley as a pioneer of flight, and promulgated dubious claims about the theoretical airworthiness of Langley's craft (it-coulda-been-a-contenda-if-only). Dpbsmith (talk) 14:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually it is a well-known claim. There is even a paragraph on it in Wright Brothers. Probably the material on this page came from one of the several books on the subject. --Zero 22:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with Wright brothers. Also make it NPOV. --Idont Havaname 00:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's poorly written and needs to be cleaned up, but it should stay since several other "unverified theories" are found throughout Wikipedia (and this one has kernals of truth to it). LegitReality 20:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Wright Brothers material on this topic, and redirect, assuming the information can be sourced reliably. Besides Langley, who are the inventors who achieved flight earlier? The information (if that is what it is) should not be in an obscurely titled separate article where (a) it won't be found; and (b) probably won't go through the usual WP vetting process. --BM 22:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Wright Brothers section, but it definitely needs work. —Mar·ka·ci 19:02, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist (band)

As Zeitgeist refine their live act, combining fetish shows with their musical prowess, as well as introducting clothing and merchandise -- sell, sell, sell, with Wikipedia as one advertising medium, it seems. Non-notable. -- Hoary 09:38, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tricalzone

Non notable (1 hit). Just a yahoo group. Gtabary 10:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. --InShaneee 20:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Mikkalai 07:14, 28 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 02:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glugc

Non notable: 20 hits. Schoolcruft: small, relevent to a fraction of student from one university. Gtabary 10:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If they produced a widely used and notable open source programme, then they would be notable, but as it is it appears they are of only very limited local interest. Average Earthman 16:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable club. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 07:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lilith (comics)

Nothing links to this disambiguation page, and no user would ever think of typing the name "Lilith (comics)" on their own. Instead, the "Lilith" page points to the "Lilith (disambiguation)" page, which is has many more sense, including the two comics sense listed in this page. So this page is redundant. Nyh 10:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree. Useless and redundant. --InShaneee 20:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There were links that pointed there, but I fixed them some time ago. Better to keep this than to have an editor link here and then end up creating a redundant article. -Sean Curtin 01:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. Why would any editor create, out of the blue, a link to "Lilith (comics)", when going to Lilith shows that the disambiguation is Lilith (disambiguation)? If you're worried about this "Lilith (comics)" being created again at some point (I still don't see why not), a redirect can solve this problem. I still think that a page with no incoming links and redundant content is, well, redundant and can be deleted. Nyh 08:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's entirely possible that someone editing a comics article will use the disambiguator of (comics) here, not knowing that what they're looking for is at a more specific title. That said, redirecting to Lilith (disambiguation) is probably a better solution than keeping this. -Sean Curtin 03:50, Jan 30, 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. Rossami (talk) 02:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latak inc

Some students with unspecified exploits and contributions. --LeeHunter 12:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. Zero google hits. --InShaneee 20:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 07:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. misplaced vanity. Carole a 09:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. EvilOverlordX 00:20, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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 Typewriter. Stormie 09:01, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Blackburn

Guiness book entry. Fastest typist. --LeeHunter 12:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does a person's presence in the GB disqualify them from WP? If so, I won't oppose this. Robert Earl Hughes and Randy Gardner appear to be similarly non-notable outside of their world record. — PhilHibbs | talk 13:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into Typewriter article, do necessary protocol for GFDL, then delete. Not notable enough for individual biographical entry. Typewriter speed contents were big deals in the 20s, 30s, 40s, I didn't even know they still conducted them... could even be a little section about this in the Typewriter article if there isn't already. I don't think Guinness entries are necessarily verboten, but if we were to have many stubs like this that consisted of nothing but Guinness citations at some point we might be infringing the Guinness compilation copyright. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) Comment Merged. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I sincerely don't believe that each GB entrant should have a WP entry. For one thing, that would duplcate too much of the info in the GB itself, thus causing copyright concerns. Also, they tend to change quite a lot, which is why there's a new GB each year. In addition, the vast majority of them arent really notable outside their GB entries. A few have become somewhat iconic, like the fat twins on the little bikes, and a few are more than notable enough outside their GB accomplishments (like Thomas Edison's GB mention for most patents). Those are the exceptions, though, and there are tens of thousands more for whom nothing else can be said than they helped roast the world's biggest weenie in 1962. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Typewriter. If every GB record holder had a place in wikipedia, we'd have a flood of articles that would only have a few lines to them. I would consider them vanity, either way. How many record holders are household names to anyone? As a side note, perhaps an article should be posted on this subject for discussion/further rulings. --InShaneee 16:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Typewriter and add redirect. Megan1967 01:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect to typewriter. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:25, 26 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 02:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. cities with teams from five major sports

This is a list which will only have one entry. In order to promote Minneapolis, it spuriously claims that lacrosse is a major U.S. sport. A list of North American cities by number of major sports teams would be useful, though. Warofdreams 12:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Lacrosse and Ice Hockey are the official Canadian summer and winter sports respectively (note that Canada does not financially support lacrosse teams for international competitions or anything)... since Minnesota is so Canadian, maybe that's why it's listed next to hockey, Baseball, Basketball and Football? But lacrosse isn't even a major sport in Canada. I would think that soccer would be the fifth major North American sport, considering we have the phrase soccer mom, or it would be softball 132.205.45.110 18:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This will just lead to arguments over what is a major sport in the US. Also, the title should specify professional sports teams. Carrp 19:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Denver would qualify under the criteria of this article, but it's still not a meaningful article. Delete. RickK 21:16, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, trivial, POV. Megan1967 01:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: useless list. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, cannot be made NPOV, since the only purpose of the article is to make a point. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. But neither is U.S. cities with teams from four major sports, which might have been the author's point. Delete that too. Why not Three major-league professional sports teams, or Two major-league teams plus I'll throw in a couple of minor league teams? These kind of lists are just moronic. --BM 17:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Until lacrosse becomes a major feature on SportsCenter then I say we have only four major sports in the U.S., and as long as we do, this list should not exist. —Brim 18:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but switch lacrosse for soccer. —Ashley Y 00:46, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 09:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic; topic is far too ambiguous. Cataclysm12 22:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant and ambiguous. --Idont Havaname 00:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Lacrosse is not a major sport. Iceberg3k 20:11, Feb 6, 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 ambiguous. AI count 5 delete to 5 keep. Even after discounting the anon and very new user votes, this article fails to reach a clear concensus to delete. The decision defaults to keep for now. Rossami (talk) 04:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of oncology-related terms

It's supposed to be a list of oncology-related terms (who would've thought that?), but the way it is now it's pretty unusable: many links to disambiguation pages and links like bias, clinical, hormone, kidney, laser, lupus, motor, oral, penis, plasma, rectum, sensor, TM and vitamin are not useful in any way. I found these links by just swiftly looking over the huge list. I don't oppose a list like that, but it should be more than just a copy&paste of a really huge senseless list of terms that have something to do with the topic, so I vote Delete the list as it is now. --Conti|✉ 12:35, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I vote Delete — Brim 13:37, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As noted, many terms are not oncology specific. Useful subsets of this list are found in their respective articles already. (Many of the chemotherapy drugs are linked in chemotherapy, for instance.) --TenOfAllTrades 20:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: one of the few useful lists in Wikipedia. Put it on cleanup with a request to cut out the items not specifically related to oncology. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. We also have Category:Oncology, which should duplicate any list of oncology terms. --TenOfAllTrades 17:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, if it can be cleaned up and expanded to make it more practical. If we can allow trivial music lists on Wikipedia I see nothing wrong with this list. Megan1967 23:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up please I find long lists like this sometimes very rewarding although I do feel that they could get rid of the many unessecarry terms.
  • Keep, concur with Megan1967. --Idont Havaname 01:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, should be a category. Tuf-Kat 04:05, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, concur with Megan1967. --Stevieboy
    • User's first (and yet only) two edits are on this page. --Conti|✉ 21:47, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like Tuf-Kat, I think that the category is enough. — Asbestos | Talk 21:40, 31 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grichels

Original research :-) -- Curps 12:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Self-advertisement. Half a dozen google hits, so not notable either. --InShaneee 21:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 07:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement. Carole a 10:00, 28 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 04:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diaper Exposure

It's highly unencyclopedic and has no prospect of ever becoming more. I'm not sure if this doesn't actually belong in a speedy deletion, but, I'm putting it here for safe measure. --gcbirzantalk 13:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --RoySmith 13:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete reminds me of user Sud Pol who added diaper pictures to various articles a couple weeks ago. Presumably some sort of fetish. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've also deleted the pseudo-kiddie-porn pic from the article and listed it on ifd. RickK 21:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I, too, think that the creator of this article (User:Brother Larry) is a re-incarnation of User:Sud-Pol. Looks like he's now using one-off accounts. Lupo 08:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Curps 08:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. silsor 09:03, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Crap (no pun intended) Longhair 10:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mr. Diaper ("Sud Pol", "Brother Larry", etc) is trying to put as many diaper photos as possible in inappropriate articles; this is another example of his trying to promote his personal fetish. Let's see: Ah. 19 google hits for the phrase "diaper exposure". A couple from legitimate medical sites where usage has nothing to do with alleged meaning in this article. The rest? Most from Wikipedia (google must have just spidered us) and diaper fetish sites. -- Infrogmation 21:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. LavosBacons 23:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ridiculous -- Jacottier 03:03, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the "(often girls)" puts one step too close to kiddie porn. Carole a 10:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 11:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, vandalism. Chris vLS 18:54, 28 Jan 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. Carried out by Academic Challenger

[edit] Siv cederborg

Most likely a hoax directed at some schoolmate's mother. / up+land 14:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for obvious reasons. Alarm 16:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete | Aequo 19:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete delete DELETE Smoddy | ειπετε 22:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. -- Curps 22:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 01:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Carole a 10:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Now that this is deleted, could some admin please take a look at the other contributions of the IP that wrote this article. I have a feeling there was something more there, but I'm not sure if it was vandalism (although it seems likely). / up+land 10:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • (KekeFox | talk | contributions) has no other extant contributions. -- Curps 23:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Primrose Shipman

Primrose Shipman has been a dangling hyperlink from Harold Shipman since December 28, 2004. I doubt that she's deserving of an encyclopaedia article in her own right, especially if this is all that can be said about her. Uncle G 15:31, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

  • Just redirect it then. VfD is long enough already without having to debate this. sjorford:// 16:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and delete link on HS article, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect I feel deeply sorry for this poor woman but unfortunately she's not notable from an encylopaedic standpoint, her mention in the main Harold Shipman article is enough. Zerbey 23:42, 27 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Titoonic

Apparently a Danish web production company attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertising billboard for its services. Uncle G 16:02, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

  • Agreed, clearly linkspam Outlander 17:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. They do get 4,540 hits from Google. See the precedents-LtNOWIS 20:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete platform for an external link. —Korath (Talk) 01:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising Cdc 01:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Andris 23:37, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. However, the term is used by all the services. I am instead going to redirect it to Officer Cadet, a service-agnostic article. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Officer Trainee

Seems like an insignificant bit of jargon from a single institution --LeeHunter 15:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep after the rewrite. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Public lectures

Seems like advertising to me, a candidate for wiktionary at best. --InShaneee 16:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Tautology. And parochial to boot. This isn't it, but there is something to be said on the topic of public lectures (c.f. Royal Institution) particularly their contribution to modern thinking (such as the effect of public autopsies on medicine). Keep, Move to public lecture, and send to Cleanup. Uncle G 17:48, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Once you take out the advert, you're left with a statement that public lectures are lectures for the public. In other words, there is absolutely nothing here to cleanup, we'd be requesting an article from scratch. But a good article on the history of public lectures is probably a good thing to have, so Delete and list on requested articles. Average Earthman 23:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Good rewrite by Uncle G. The revised article is a keep. Average Earthman 12:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I was also left with the external link. ☺ Modified Article. Uncle G 20:22, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • This could be a decent subject, but the current text is spam. Delete, unless it's cleaned up. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:27, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) Seeing the spam text replaced with acceptable content, I change my vote to keep. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 06:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and list on requested articles. Concur with Average Earthbeing's reasons. Barno 05:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete & list on requested articles. Agreed w/ Average Earthman. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the cleaned up and expanded article looks good. Megan1967 23:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Mikkalai has done the move. Xe forgot to move this page as well in order to keep the {{subst:vfd}} link intact, which I've just done. Uncle G 12:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 00:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Wilson

"Critically acclaimed" songwriter but no hits for the album on Google. --LeeHunter 16:14, 25 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xball

Vanity. The site provided in the official link says the game was invented two weeks ago. Admittedly interesting, but far from notable. --InShaneee 16:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comments by author 81.101.7.207 copied from article:

There have aparently been concerns from some Wikipedia users that this game is only two weeks old, and is thus not rleveant enougth to be posted on Wikipedia and should be deleted, this is in fact wrong, the game may be new but it has take Brighton by storm, thir are at least three coleges in Brighton that so far ave had competitions in the game, and there are scores of people who adore the game. one of the points of this article is to inform, the whole point of an encyclopedia, and thus we wer tryign to inform the world of Xball...plz don't delete it

  • Delete. Original research, not notable, almost reads like an advert. jni 16:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A three-week old game that is taking the University of Brighton by storm, eh? It has no takers in the English department yet, though, apparently. Delete. If you want to promote something new, publish an article on your own website. Wikipedia is not a publicity vehicle. Uncle G 19:09, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for a local fad. — Gwalla | Talk 19:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It takes more than three weeks to establish a new sport. Furthermore, since it is so brand spanking new, it would make any article original research, and therefore not eligible for Wikipedia. Come back to us when you've got it in the news (and a proper part of the news, not a space filling article in some local rag). Average Earthman 23:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting, but too new. Delete. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai
  • Delete. It isn't a well-known game. The whole article is an attempt to draw attention to the author (?). There was a link to the article (which I removed) in the Pool ambiguation page, which just shows the attention seeking. Pink-isnt-well

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. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zegames

Promotion for non-notable game website. 421 hits. Alexa rank 2,302,496. Niteowlneils 16:26, 25 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kyratopia and related articles

Includes, but is not limited to: History of Kyratopia, Kyratovsko, Novatopia and any article that might appear in the meantime.

Likely Vanity (correlated by creator username: El Duccio del Kyratopia) articles or Patent Nonsense. Googling shows no relevant links.--Circeus 16:27, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. All contribs by User:El Duccio del Kyratopia so far seem to be whole-cloth fiction. In addition to the above there's now also Kyropolis, Kyratopian Federal Republic and a redir to it from Republicca Kyratovska Federol, Vincian, and Kyratopian (some of which are currently sporting speedy tags). Niteowlneils 19:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You beat me. I was leaving this little lot until the end of my new pages sweep, intending to do what you've just done. You missed Kyratovskos (currently marked speedy delete). Delete the lot. Uncle G 20:17, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somebody's fictional universe. No Google hits for Kyratopia, so I strongly suspect that it is not part of a published work. — Gwalla | Talk 19:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It was a salutary experience to read all of these Kyratopia articles, full of made up names, fictional histories, invented places, and non-human people, and then read Asyr Sei'lar, added to the encyclopaedia at roughly the same time. Uncle G 20:17, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Delete all, not notable, original research, hoax. Megan1967 00:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Skysmith 10:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai
  • Delete, and also Federal Kyratopia Republic. What fun. sjorford:// 18:05, 5 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. Rossami (talk) 00:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death emo

Original research (introduces a neologism, in this case almost inventing the word). Very few hits with Google for the term and most of these are from blogs or message boards, and lists with the words "death" and "emo" in succession (ie. death, emo). "Death emo" coupled with any of the bands produce even lesser hits. --Ilpanula 17:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree wholeheartedly. --Eschon 17:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Couldn't agree more. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, original research, neologism. Megan1967 00:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • NOT DELETE!!!, death-emo is definitely a genre, if not an "official" genre it is definitely a sub-genre whether Google says it is or not!
  • Delete, Il's reasons are well stated and the last thing we need is another flavor of emo, anyway. Jgm 03:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not because I loath emo, but that death emo is not a branch of emo.
  • Delete for reasons already stated. --Idont Havaname 00:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but make a subcategory of emo --Smooth Henry 05:18, Feb 5, 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. Stormie 09:04, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lo' Down (a.k.a. Loco José)

Member of non-notable rap group (formed in 2004). Vanity. --LeeHunter 18:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. —kooo 02:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Deloco, nn. GRider\talk 00:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet the WikiProject:Music guidelines, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:16, Jan 30, 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. Stormie 09:04, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Gibson

A Canadian artist. I can't find much on Google. --LeeHunter 18:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • And what I could find was postings on a few boards pointing to www.neilgibson.ca which doesn't exist. I suspect a bit of premature vanity here. Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 05:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai
  • Delete, maybe one day he will make it to being worth the mention, but for now Delete. Carole a 10:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. Samaritan 23:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Marcus22 20:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, based on this search, he has only done a little bit of work in Toronto and a few places within a few hours driving distance. Not notable enough to warrant an article. -- James Teterenko (talk) 05:31, 2 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. Stormie 09:04, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rides the bus

Non-notable local band. Just one EP, probably self-published as it seems to only be purchasable from their website. Four displayed hits for "Rides the bus" "Fly-In Saucer" (the latter being the name of their EP). Niteowlneils 19:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable and extremely POV. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 20:28, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Besides being nn, this looks like a possible personal attack against someone in the band. Szyslak 21:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad article --Neigel von Teighen 21:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, POV. Megan1967 00:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Biased. z0mb1
  • Delete. Not notable. Qwghlm 19:02, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet the WikiProject:Music guidelines, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:16, Jan 30, 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. Stormie 09:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sárdi, Rudolf

Wrote one book which produces one hit on Google. --LeeHunter 18:59, 25 Jan 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. Stormie 08:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quadratic rule

A theoretical voting method that has never been seriously proposed or implemented in reality. No citations of sources given. Delete, as: 1) neologism, with no evidence of significant use. 2) Personal essay; original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain for now, but the parts about "This poll is legitimate if it receives 2% participation within 2 days" and the references to "Votes for Deletion polls" sounds suspiciously like Iasson, who may be disrupting WP to make a point. See current RfC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have the same surmise. Note, however, that the article was created on Dec. 25th, 2004 and is certainly not a direct response to the RFC. (I do not perceive the article as disruptive, but I don't think it's encyclopedic, either). Dpbsmith (talk) 19:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looking at the history, initially, this looked like a legitimate (if possibly orignially researched) article. User:62.38.250.106 then added a bunch of text which sounds an awful lot like a WP policy proposal, going so far as to include an in-article link to VfD. Perhaps this article got hijacked? -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 20:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Unlikely. All those IP addresses originate at the same place. As well as User:146.124.141.250, who created Average rule (which, incidentally, is one of only three articles Iasson has made an edit to). Raven42 20:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, well in that case delete as original research and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 21:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's pretty clear that User:146.124.141.250 is User:Iasson [6] Oh, yeah, delete as original research. --Calton 00:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • No doubt of that. The edits from 62.38.* are almost certainly all his too: [7] Oh, and did I say delete? Raven42 01:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. 14 non-Wikipedia-mirror hits for "quadratic rule" (vote OR voting), none of which are relevant. —Korath (Talk) 01:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, original research, patent nonsense. Take your pick. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll abstain only because I don't feel like researching this specific article.  :) But, I would like to say that if this and average rule are ruled to be deleted, then the rest of the work from this author should also be called into question. I've already taken my scissors to unencyclopedic stuff he added to majoritarianism. --Stevietheman 04:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original patent nonsense; Don't abuse WP to make a point. The edit history's IP overlap, specific text content, and in-article link to the Iasson RfC (which has had an unbelievable history of its own outside of the VfD edits that caused it) all point to a user who has shown strange (and somewhat disruptive) ideas about Wikipedia voting standards, and who more importantly has refused to propose his ideas in appropriate forums after being directed to them. VfD, RfC, and now the (revised) article space are being filled with timewasting legalistic junk. Barno 05:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research (at best). Andrewa 08:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Detete. Thryduulf 09:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • of course Keep. Of course I didnt wrote that article. Of course this is another victim of the deletionist gang band, because I used it as a reference and as an defence in my RFC. Iasson 15:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • As per the general consensus in the above mentioned RFC I have deleted the portion of Iasson's comment regarding a change to the VfD procedure. Thryduulf 15:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I acknowledge that it was indeed the recent RfC that drew my attention to the article. Actually what drew me to it was the link Quadratic rule from average rule. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. This has gone on far too long. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 21:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. If deleted, also delete the ridirect Quadratic vote. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research --BM 00:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-encyclopedic mumbo-jumbo. Delete. hfool/Roast me 03:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original "research", or more likely an original attempt at disruption. —Stormie 09:07, Jan 27, 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. Stormie 09:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fistful Of Sound

Another non-notable local band. Only a couple relevant hits for "Fistful Of Sound" -ennio. From same contributor as Rides the bus. From the article: "While they mainly play cover versions of their favourite songs by bands such as Iron Maiden and Muse, some original material has leaked out and is so far sounding very good, despite never having been played live in public as of yet." and "Names need not be mentioned this soon into the hopefully long and glorious career of Fistful Of Sound." Niteowlneils 19:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 20:05, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I like the "names need not be mentioned" bit. --RoySmith 21:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Fistful of delete. GRider\talk 18:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity article...but I'm amused by the "Awesomeness in a jar".Ganymead 05:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet the WikiProject:Music guidelines, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:15, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT TO Chicken wire (chemistry). Although there were many votes to delete, they were for a form of the article very different from what currently exists, so I am using my discretion here. Stormie 09:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1,2-Dimethyl-chickenwire

seems like a hoax: 1. no google match for the specified compound, 2. link includes a joke page with mercedes benzene, 3. linked professor doesn't have a paper on this compound--Confuzion 19:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, hoax. -- Curps 20:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, definite hoax. Note that Dr. Kim is an editor at the Annals of Improbable Research. This looks like a candidate for BJAODN. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 20:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a figment of Dr. Kim's imagination. Raven42 20:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an amusing page, but it will have to go! The compound is a perfectly valid compound, but I'm pretty sure no one has made it as yet. Walkerma 20:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a joke. I've made this joke. (Well, mine was trimethyl-chickenwire, but let's not quibble.) It's an old joke, too. I made this joke when I last went by this pseudonym, some ... er ... several years ago, and even that wasn't the first time. Nor am I the origin of the joke. Much as I enjoyed this particular instantiation (including the molecular mass!) I regretfully say Delete. This is not quite thiotimoline. Uncle G 20:35, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. When I first heard this joke, Kennedy was president. (Of course, I heard it as "dibromo-trichloro-chickenwire." Along with benzene rings with "MD" radicals attached to it for "ortho-docs," "para-docs," and "meta-physics." And periodic acid, don't forget periodic acid (sinusoidally oscillating pH). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I like it, though. I looked for a while on the web for sites that one could upload a chemistry joke without a) it getting mixed in with other jokes and b) where you don't have to pass it through someone's email account .. in other words you can add it without adulteration. The only one I've found so far is at http://library.thinkquest.org/10429/gather/jokes.htm . Unfortunately, no images allowed here. Perhaps you can convince Dr. Helmenstine to add the joke to her Molecules with Strange Names page on About.com. Courtland 2005-01-31
  • Keep, 1. Google is not the appropriate place to search for this compound, but gave at least three hits for me (e.g. for 2,3-dimethyl-chickenwire, but this is probably just an alternative numbering scheme). 2. There seem to be indeed some "obscure" molecules in that article, but 1,2-dimethyl-chickenwire is obviously one of the real ones. 3. Professor Nick D. Kim, does have a publication on it, it's linked to in the external link section. It was published under his pseudonym ("Nick"). 4. All chemical data given for this particular compound is correct, I have double-checked it. Cacycle 23:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - it's a joke. Look at the first external link!! Rd232 23:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Possibly worth an entry qua joke? But there'd be a problem of settling on a name given the existing and possible variations. Rd232 23:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, obviously a joke. A funny one, no doubt, but still a joke.
  • Speedy, obvious joke. Bart133 03:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep somehow Yes it is a joke but maybe a significant historial joke. I heard Prof. Woodward, the organic chemist, make it 40 years ago. He was refering, ironically, to a chemical synthesis involving a multiplicity of aromatic rings. In a way it perfectly describes a whole category of multicyclic molecules and as such is a valid simile. Besides being very memorable. ping 08:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and document as an old and very notable joke. GRider\talk 18:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Could be mentioned in chicken wire or whatever the real name is for that chemical notation. Kappa 20:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Add to WP:BJAODN Add to Chicken wire (chemistry) --Carnildo
  • BJAODN Keep. Megan1967 23:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • But it is a Good Joke and therefore not appropriate for BJAODN. ping 06:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay I agree, changed above vote to Keep. Megan1967 01:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Then vote GJAODN. Uncle G 12:48, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • keep. A known joke. Not exactly original research. Jokes are encyclopedic. Mikkalai 07:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I will make it a redirect to an article called Chicken_wire_(chemistry) that will be about the joke and the common use of the term chicken wire in chemistry ("Chicken-wire chemistry" gives 4,580 Google hits). Please give me some time for that. Also, if you find old references to this joke or have personal stories to tell, please add them to the current 1,2-Dimethyl-chickenwire page. Cacycle 12:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 05:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Chicken wire (chemistry) and cleanup. —Korath (Talk) 06:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a joke. Possibly trans-wikify into the nearest wiki-blackhole.
  • Delete to BJAODN... maybe Best of BJAODN? This one was great! --Idont Havaname 01:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or move to Chicken wire (chemistry), but be much clearer about what is real and what is a joke. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke.
    • Voted by User:BM. Mikkalai 07:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Oops, thanks for identifying me. --BM)

[edit] Comments

  • It turns out that this kind of compound made it in a chemistry textbook, p.28 (ethylmethyl chicken wire; together with Mercedes Benzene). Hence the votes based on "nonnotability" are moot. Mikkalai 07:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, what votes would they be, then? The only vote that mentions notability at all is GRider's Keep vote. Uncle G 13:50, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Also, my search revealed the mainstream usage of the "chickenwire" term in chemistry and nanotechnology. Hence the joke has serious connotations, confirming its notability. I guess most voters should have taken a refresher course in organic chemistry. Mikkalai 07:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Many of the voters appear to know more about organic chemistry than you think. They know enough to immediately recognize a long-standing organic chemistry joke (one of several) when they see it. Here's a refresher course: Repeat "Chemists have senses of humour, too." to yourself several hundred times. Uncle G 13:50, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
      • That I've already learned while surfing the web. Therefore I am baffled by the vote. A long-stading joke deserves some respect. Mikkalai 15:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • We aren't discussing whether it deserves respect. We are discussing whether it deserves an encyclopaedia entry. And, as always, that involves answering the two questions whether the encyclopaedia needs an article by this name and whether the encyclopaedia needs this actual article itself. The joke clearly doesn't deserve the encyclopaedia article that it has here. Even if one doesn't read the deletion policy, one just has to look at BJAODN to deduce that Wikipedia has a pretty evident long-standing policy of not including hoax articles. That answers the second question. It's also inappropriate for the encyclopaedia to have an article (other than perhaps a redirect) by this name, which should be clear from the fact that three different people here alone know the joke by three different names (and there is a potentially infinite number of variations on the joke — such as 1,1,1729-trimethyl-chickenwire for example). That answers the first. What people have proposed now is, essentially, creating a wholly new article under a wholly new name. And as long as Jmabel's concerns about not simply re-creating this joke article again are addressed, that seems like a reasonable course of action. But that doesn't change the fact that this article by this name should be deleted. Uncle G 12:45, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
          • I see the light. Mikkalai 18:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact, this page points at a deficiency of the Joke article, It is full of silly jokes, but lacks professional jokes (I am speaking not about profession-targeting jokes). This chickenwire may be a seed of it. I am surprized that people are happy with shit happens, but uprize against an elegant, professional, but clear to everyone joke. It says something about modern fuck-word-based culture, isn't it? Mikkalai 07:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have already collected all Google-indexed webpages that mention chickenwire in a chemical context and will make an Chicken_wire_(chemistry) article that will be about the joke as well as of the use of the term in at least two other chemical contexts. Cacycle 09:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1,2-Dimethyl-chickenwire has been made a redirect to the completely new article Chicken wire (chemistry). Cacycle 01:05, 3 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. Stormie 09:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Learning the periodic table

Rather a how-to or study guide than an encyclopedic article. The described method probably falls under "original research" as well (not performing the method -- the method itself). Might be appropriate on Wikibooks. Fredrik | talk 19:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Original research. Though any reference to Tom Lehrer is a good thing. Delete --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not an encyclopaedia entry. Funny, but not worth to keep. Delete --Neigel von Teighen 21:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • ... And only for very small values of "Funny". Delete --RoySmith 21:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vsmith 01:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Stormie 09:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Wong

This was marked as a speedy but isn't a candidate. It's a Digimon character of some sorts. I'm abstaining for now. — Gwalla | Talk 19:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Perhaps not the strongest keep vote I've ever issued, but he's a main character and this is undeniably a popular show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:55, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've seen a whole load of Digimon related articles - I reckon they should be gathered together, similarly to Minor characters in Star Wars. I see no reason not to have them included, but I don't think each characted is notable enough (i.e. outside Digimon) to warrant its own article. So that's keep, but with a suggestion that all the Digimon articles be cleaned up and collated. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with the same recommendation as Smoddy. 23skidoo 00:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, fictious character, borderline notable. Megan1967 00:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, but cleanup. Bart133 03:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Digimon. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Digimon. -- Hoary 07:03, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Keep hoping to merge, as per Smoddy etc. Kappa 07:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup/merge/redirect not to Digimon but with Terriermon (which also badly needs cleanup at present), which is apparently Henry/Jenrya's Digimon "character" in Digimon, or something. Samaritan 07:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 05:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Redirect Jenrya Li to Henry Wong, or redirect both to a character page - Lots of Digimon stubs have been made. I moved some of them to the English anime and manga names, but I don't have a long term plan for the characters. WhisperToMe 03:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Stormie 09:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuker

Appears to be a neologism, as I can't find any google hits relating to it. --InShaneee 20:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable jargon Cdc 01:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Bart133 03:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand or merge with other warez related stuff. YannisKollias 14:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well established term. bbx 15:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable jargon. GRider\talk 18:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we can keep an article on w00t or Pwn, I see no reason this cant stay.  ALKIVAR™ 21:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I ride for my nukers, I die for my nukers. —RaD Man (talk) 21:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, borderline. Megan1967 00:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. neologism, dicdef, minor aspect of minor Internet subculture. --BM 14:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Tautologous dictionary definition ("A 'nuker' is one who 'nukes'.") of a minor jargon term. Delete or Merge with warez. Uncle G 16:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Keep with caution, but should likely be merged with warez, noting that the whole warez community encourages copyright violations. Do we make mention of that? I believe I read a policy discussion on "illegal activity promotion" a week or two ago. Did it become policy I wonder?Weaponofmassinstruction 23:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with warez. Gamaliel 18:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Stormie 09:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brickjackson

17 year old cosplayer. No evidence of notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete --InShaneee 21:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • One liner, no possibility of expansion. Speedied. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 25 Jan 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. Stormie 09:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The New Computer Gaming graphics

Personal essay. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Falls under "original research", fwiw. Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nearly incoherent personal essay. Shimeru 21:53, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and The Future of Technology, created by the same person. --Matteh (talk) 23:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal essay. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:23, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, essay. Bart133 03:08, 26 Jan 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. Stormie 09:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tildebang

Neologism that doesn't seem to have much traction. Less than 10 displayed hits, several of which are usernames, etc. Niteowlneils 21:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Useless. Bart133 03:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 18:24, 26 Jan 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. Stormie 09:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joan Snyder

Wikipedia is not the place for obituaries. --Woohookitty 21:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a copyvio, isn't it? RickK 21:39, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, but it's more the general principle of no obits without context. --Woohookitty 21:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unenyclopaedic - Wikipedia is not a memorial or news archive. Megan1967 00:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. Delete. Bart133 03:07, 26 Jan 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. Stormie 09:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fishpond

Has anyone heard of this term? It looks non-notable and unencyclopedic. -LtNOWIS 22:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nor I. --Enigma 23:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only in terms of it being a pond with fish in it. I suspect this currently is only on the level of a private joke. Average Earthman 00:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably an inside joke. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inside joke. Bart133 03:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:56, 29 Jan 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. Stormie 09:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jammin Internet Services

Non-notable website. Three [Google] hits for "Jammin Internet Services". No Alexa rank. Several of the claims in the article are suspect, and don't seem to match what I see at http://jammin.net/ Niteowlneils 22:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. How can a real ISP get only 3 Google hits, anyway? And jammin.net is worthless. dbenbenn | talk 23:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worthless. Bart133 03:03, 26 Jan 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. Stormie 09:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjammin H. Graham

Non-notable founder of Jammin Internet Services, listed above. Four displayed hits for "Benjammin H. Graham". Niteowlneils 22:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS B Man, which redirects to it, is on RfD. Niteowlneils 22:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The anon contrib of these 4 articles has also created User:Benjamin Graham (tho' it doesn't seem to be a real user page--no 'user contributions' link), increasing my suspicions that they are all autobiographical. Niteowlneils 22:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks like vanity. dbenbenn | talk 23:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Bart133 03:04, 26 Jan 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. Stormie 09:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WeIrDo

Non-notable website. 16 displayed hits for "weirdo bbs", and most are coincidental pairings of the words, not this site. Part of the Jammin Internet Services and Benjammin H. Graham series, listed above. Niteowlneils 22:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Cdc 01:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Bart133 03:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 18:07, 26 Jan 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. Stormie 09:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jammin

Non-notable website. 15 displayed hits for "Jammin bbs", and most are coincidental pairings of the words, not this site. Part of the Jammin Internet Services, WeIrDo, and Benjammin H. Graham series, listed above. Niteowlneils 22:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Bart133 03:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. RJFJR 22:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 09:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Entropy five

A google search for this artisté and his first album reveals three hits. Suspect band vanity. Meelar (talk) 22:32, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, one-man band vanity. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. Bart133 03:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This response amuses me to no end. The truth of the matter is that all information is recorded for the sake of human vanity. Why else are logs like this kept? To gague the validity of information based on how many people have made reference to it is ludicrous. If the information is not recorded somewhere, how else are people going to hear about it? This article was written in as much of a unbiased fashion as the author was capable of. The fact that there aren't a million Google hits for this artist does not make the information contained herein any less truthful or real. If this is to be an information resource, isn't it a bit contradictory to remove information from it, based on the fact that not everyone has heard of it? How is an article on this artist any less notable than an article on John Denver, Marilyn Manson, or Liberace (all of whom have articles here)? Is it because he has not inspired hundreds or thousands? He has inspired one or two... is that not enough? Is it becuase he has not made millions of dollars at what he does? If so, is money a measure of truth? You call yourselves an information resource, yet you are turning away information based on some ephemeral "validity." How is this artist any less valid than, say, Jessica Simpson?
    • comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
  • I don't think I can summarize my opinion any better than the verbose poster just before me. An artist's popularity (or in this case, lack of it) doesn't make the information any less valuable or valid to those who may have an interest in learning more about him/her. If this is supposed to be an information resource, I don't see a reason to remove information from the page as long as it's verifiable.
    • comment by anon user:4.8.215.145
    • Consider my coffee mug. I can verify the existence of the mug, and if so pushed I could verify its size, colour, and structure. Should I therefore write an article about this particular coffee mug? Well, I can if I want to on a server that I own, but I can't just go foisting it off on other people and then act uppity when they complain that my article is boring drivel (which an article about my particular coffee mug would be). This is a ridiculous example, of course, but merely to illustrate that there should be a line drawn somewhere. Wikipedia is here to reflect note, not to create it. In other words, no, inspiring one or two is not enough. Average Earthman 10:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You're always welcome to write an article about your coffee mug, and then we can go through this whole VfD process again. Fortunately, you understand that your coffee mug probably isn't destined for mass appeal, or really a subject matter that has the potential for mass appeal. While the artist may not -have- said mass appeal, s/he is a subject that possibly could become a more widespread point of curiosity given time. Additionally, after reading back through the policy on deleting articles, and the types of things that are permissible, I'm even more convinced this should be a Keeper. I don't think it's too over-the-top or promotional in nature to justify the entry on Wikipedia.
        • anon comment by user:4.8.215.145
  • Fame has nothing to do with relevance. Policy of Wikipedia even dictates that this not be argued in discussions about deletion. A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates. Furthermore, it should be noted that an article is not a "vanity" page simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. This page doesn't fall under "overtly promotional", it is informational. It therefore doesn't fall under any criteria for deletion. A relevant argument in favor of deletion has yet to be made.
    • Comment by anon user:218.138.64.103
    • There is no Wikipedia policy that says fame can't be used in a discussion like this one. The fact that there is no consensus regarding the degree of recognition does mean that fame is irrelevant or that it can't be used as a criterion for deletion. Tuf-Kat 04:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Influence, not fame. You can be obscure, but very important (I've argued in favour of articles for full professors who aren't exactly famous outside of their fields). But someone with next to no influence whatsoever isn't deserving of an article anymore than my coffee mug is. Furthermore, extreme obscurity will tend to result in a very reduced number contributing to the article, making verification reliant on the point of view of the author. As for your vanity argument - if a game, book or movie ever writes its own article, I'll be surprised. Besides, you are specifically instructed not to write about yourself on the editing page when you create a new article. 12:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, This seems like a pretty clear case of something that doesn't belong. As for the argument that "if the information isn't recorded somewhere, how else will people hear about it", the information IS recorded somewhere. The author/band has other places where this information is available. Of course there are lines drawn about what is valid for inclusion. This is an online encyclopedia. It's not a dictionary, it's not a calendar, it's not a lyric repository, it's not a recipie database. Dannimal
    • This is the user's only edit to Wikipedia.
  • The question begs to be asked: What, exactly, is influential? This artist is part of a small group that has, nigh single-handedly, inspired a resurgance in the central california industrial music scene. Before Entropy Five's emergence there was next to no attention paid to this genre of music in the area between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Now, there are monthly (if not more) live industrial shows in this region, as well as several new clubs opening their doors. The influence may not be on a world-wide level. But, to quote Wikipedia policy: "A page should not be cast away as 'vanity' simply because the subject is not famous." Likewise, Wikipedia policy states that "it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project," but does not expressly forbid it. At this point, I see no logical, moral, or semantic reason that this article should be deleted. The only arguments posted for deletion have been ephemeral, at best. Keep. z0mb1 (talk) (Sorry. Forgot to post my sig line last time.)
    • User's only contributions to Wikipedia so far have been to this discussion thread. The edit history of this page, however, suggests that he/she may have a contribution history as anon user:63.171.166.140.
      • I made a few factual edits to the article. z0mb1 (talk)
    • This anonymous poster is making some strong and valid points. Marginal vote of keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 18:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No evidence of notability is given in the article. Entropy Five does not meet the WikiProject:Music guidelines for inclusion. If what z0mbl claims is true, added to the article and verifiable, the band would meet those guidelines. Since the article doesn't bother to mention why anyone should care about the band, however, it should be deleted. Tuf-Kat 04:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Google hits shouldn't define the influence of artwork. We're talking about a musical act that influences the counterculture and nightlife in more than one city and obviously has a substantial fan base.
    • comment by anon user:208.48.40.250
    • This is not obvious at all. The article doesn't mention it. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Going strictly by the rules of Wikipedia, the article should not be deleted. To whit: 1) music or business-related pages are not considered 'vanity' pages simply because the musician or business is not well-known, 2) authorship of an article by the subject of said article is not grounds for a ruling of 'vanity', 3) obscurity of subject is not grounds for judgement on the 'worth' of the article. That being said, the initial 'delete' request was made due to the assumption the article was a vanity piece - which, under the rules of Wikipedia, is provably false. With regards to the 'usefulness' of the article, it's true it's not going to appeal to a large number of people. But as counterpoint to that, how is that different than an article on the Realians of Xenosaga, or an article on the home planet of the Xel'Naga, Zerus? To be fair, these are highly specialized interests as well.
    • comment by anon user:128.111.111.62
    • This article goes well beyond being a specialized interest. No evidence is given that anyone aside from Dominick Balsamo give a whit about Entropy 5. There is no evidence given that anyone ever purchased a single recording by Entropy 5, or that anyone ever chose to see Entropy 5 perform. There is no reason to suspect that anyone cares at all. The links you provided are to games released by major companies; Entropy 5 is or was recorded by some record label of no apparent note (the author of this article didn't even feel the label was important enough for an article, for example). Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. --fvw* 19:05, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Keep The obscurity of an artist does not in any way pertain to the validity of information about them. There are any number of obscure artists here who are just as deserving of the articles on them, just as there are a good number of entries of obscure topics in general. The article is informative and objective and is no way vanity. rantmo
    • This is the user's only edit to Wikipedia.
  • Keep I find it absurd that smply because someone hasn't caved into the mainstream conformity of MTV or the Lillith Fair it is being argued that they shouldn't be recorded for history. Entropy 5 is a cultural phenomenon riding the left coast between Santa Barbara and San Francisco. If you speak with any involved industrial musician from the this region, they can site Entropy 5 as a band with gritty raw talent and the promise of gut wrenching struggle towards the difficult success of the industrial "scene". History is what we make of it and Entropy 5 makes it every show, every release, and every moment it creates. Why wouldn't history be listed in a forum such as this? Information is the right and entitlement to the masses.user:annamonster/annamonster
    • According to the edit history, this comment was actually made by anon user:205.188.116.195. There is no User:annamonster either with or without the slash.
    • This comment is absurd and offensive. I spend a lot of time editing Wikipedia's articles on music, and I can assure you we have plenty that are not at all related to MTV or Lillith Fair. Do not use strawmen to defend this article. From It's A Beautiful Day to Happy End, we do document obscure but notable bands. No evidence of even the slightest bit of notability is given in Entropy 5. There is only a vague claim of critical praise, and a quote from a fantasy illustrator whose opinion on music is of no particular interest. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is vanity. This is not a noteworthy band. No internet presence to speak of aside from a CafePress store (which may or may not actually be related to the band). No real-life presence to speak of, as far as I've ever seen or heard. No presence for "Discontent Entertainment," either, which probably means self-publishing. In short, just another local band. If they should become notable, then we can recreate the article. Shimeru 21:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP So happens I like this guy's music. not that I have any tremendous clout in the world on what's 'popular' or not; but I don't see why this should be deleted. I'd rather read an article by someone trying to promote their new music than scads of articles on predigested MTV approved schlock.
    • anon comment by User:205.188.116.195 - the same IP as "annamonster" above
    • Comment: I like the guy's music, too. Doesn't mean he's worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. "It's information" is not a valid argument. What I had for breakfast this morning is also information. It's not encyclopedic. "All information is recorded for the sake of human vanity?" Sophistry. Not all information is equal in value. Encyclopedias exist to document those people, things, and events which have had an impact on history, the arts, or the sciences. Many musicians have done so. Not all musicians have done so. Entropy Five has not done so, to the best of my knowledge and the limits of my research (and yes, I have lived in the area in question). If they are, in fact, influential, then point us to something that shows that influence. Newspaper or magazine articles? Records of extensive live performances, along the lines of a tour schedule? Other bands citing him as an influence? Anything? If he's truly influential, then it shouldn't be too difficult to find such secondary sources. Shimeru 22:43, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: To all the new or anonymous posters in this discussion thread, you should be aware that your votes are likely to be steeply discounted when this discussion is finally decided. The Votes for Deletion process has had significant problems with sockpuppets in the past who attempted to bias the voting. Arguments and facts supporting your position are welcome but they are more likely to be given credibility if you log in and sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Rossami (talk) 23:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as band vanity supported by unusually expressive talking hosiery. - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • sockpuppets? no. supporters? yes. the artist put out a request for support on its weblog and site. fans responded. the "relevance" of the artist is now enforced by a show of external interest (check the IP addresses. they are different). z0mb1
      • A different IP adress does not mean a different person. Sometimes IPs are "dynamic" and change every time the connection is restarted. Sometimes people use proxy servers to change their IPs. And sometimes people just use multiple computers. In any case, I don't think you're sockpuppets. However, users who vote on VfD whos only other edits are to the page being VfD'd (if there are any other edits at all) tend to be received with the same credibility as sockpuppets. As for the "fan base", there are 13 people reading the E5 blog. Last month there was a "new religion" that got VfD'd, and they had over 300 members. They tried the same stunt (attempting to flood the VfD page with outside users), which effectively caused the few editors who supported them to vote delete. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 05:09, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The entire article is lifted straight from the musician's LiveJournal blog. Entropy Five's New Year's Eve gig was in somebody's living room. First album was released by a label that dropped it in 2003; the material has not been rereleased. Second album remains speculative at this point. Check back in a few years, but right now Entropy Five just doesn't seem to clear the notability bar. --TenOfAllTrades 02:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • 1)The article was posted in the blog after it was posted here. 2)The initial distributor was taken over by a larger company and shut down. All artists were let go. These things happen in the independant music world. 3) The material is scheduled to be re-released this year (see the article). 4) The follow up record is due out in mid-2005 and is currently in post-production. 5)What's wrong with a band playing an intimate set for fans only, on a holiday?
      • comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
      • Nothing is 'wrong' with playing for small groups or a local community. On the other hand, the fact that his distributor was unsuccessful enough that it was taken over and its artists dropped doesn't help support a claim to notability. That this happens a lot in the independent music world is moot–a lot of independent artists aren't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. From their own website, they seem to perform quite infrequently. If this year's scheduled album release(s) generate some buzz, then the question can be revisted. Right now, a quick Googling reveals nearly no one talking about Entropy Five (with the exception of material that they've posted themselves.) --TenOfAllTrades 04:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: For the record, this text was posted on the Entropy Five LiveJournal at 23:10, Jan 25 2005 (UTC):
There is currently a debate waging at Wikipedia to allow Entropy Five's article to remain on the site. Certain individuals are claiming that this article falls under the category of "band vanity" and is not a valid cultural phenomena simply because E5 is not a world-renowned act that has made millions of dollars. Ignore an artistic endeavor simply because the whole world doesn't know about it? I think not! Besides... per Wikipedia's policy, the existence of this article violates no rules.
Please assist in preventing popularity from outruling fact, defending the right of information to exist, and kicking the MTV-spoon-fed generation in the teeth! Go here and vote! Just click the link, click the "edit this page" link near the top of the page, and add your two-cents to the text string. Be sure to highlight your KEEP vote in bold text and to put an asterisk (*) before the first letter in your article. When posting your vote, the text string should look like this: * '''Keep''' (insert defense here). You don't have to be a member of the site to vote. Please do not delete any votes or vote multiple times (people tend to get pissy when you do that, and it is tracked), and lets keep this intelligent. I don't want to start a flame war, here... But I do want to make a point. Information has the right to exist, despite its popularity. Your vote will count.
Thanks for your continued support!
-- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 04:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The poster who says that all information is, in a sense, vanity has a point. He should therefore go and compile a list of every single band that has ever played, whether it is famous or notable or not. When has has done that he can start adding articles to Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 05:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One guy has a "band"- and by this I mean he makes music himself, submits himself to Wiki, and tries to say that he's amazingly influential in the scene. Come back when more than just your friends have heard of you.
    • Unsigned vote by User:209.179.141.34. Only edit is to this page.
    • You guys are the one who has been calling this artist a "band." No claims of band membership were made in the article. Likewise, there are no rules barring self-submission. The artist never claimed to be amazingly influential, either. Those claims were made by other users in this thread. z0mb1
  • Keep. While I've used Wikipedia for a while, this made me take a closer look at how the site runs, and it's sad to see such an asinine elitist popularity game. The point has been made that band popularity is not a criteria for delisting. Keep the posting. It's something real. A real band, with legitimate effort in it, from someone's ideas of music. Entropy 5 may not be big, but it has plainly been enjoyed and listened to outside of someone's garage. I'd like to think even smaller things are worthy of remembering for posterity, and Wikipedia has always seemed a good place for that.
    • comment by anon user:68.111.230.51
  • Keep. I am a fairly new user to Wiki and this is my first comment on a VfD post. I read the rules for deletion, and it seems to me that this page doesn't hit on any of the "Delete" options. Keeping with other articles I have seen here on bands or singers, and removing the "fame" factor from the equation, the page isn't really a Vanity post at all. The music is good, I have heard a few of the bands songs in the past, and I don't see this article as innappropriate. My own opinion may be ignored over those of more experienced users, but I believe my opinion is valid. sacrosanct
    • Users only edits are to this page and user page.
      • There are no rules about why an article may be voted for deletion. We may vote to delete an article for any reason, provided it is in good faith. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep By the rules cited for deletions, it is unnecessary to even be having this poll. Aside from that, however, this is an artist of note in the Santa Barbara music/club scene. He's brought a resurgence of the popularity of the industrial music genre, and has sparked both interest and attendance in clubs he's played in. The artist does have a significant fan base in the SB area, and has been influential (in a city-wide sense) for over a year; over the course of which, I might add, his musical presence has transcended city borders and popped up in conversations I've had with other gearheads along the coast of California. Just because his music hasn't hit the big time yet doesn't mean that it's not of note. I vote strongly to leave the article as is.Spooktress 19:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Users only edit is to this page
    • If the article reflected your claims with verifiable information, then Entropy 5's notability would be not be debatable and there would be a lot more keep votes. In addition, the only rule regarding votes for deletion are that they be made by logged-in users with an edit history at Wikipedia, and that they be made in good faith. This is not a poll. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all vanity pages, including this one. Especially when the vain band in question recruits people to subvert the VfD process. Jayjg (TALK)]] 20:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Supporters have a right to be informed and given a chance to act. No threats were made, nor rewards offered for inclusion in this thread. Supporters were informed of the situation and came here to vote on their own volition. The argument here is in regard to the validity of the artist, and the fact that others show interest verifies validity. z0mb1
      • A band with 6 or 7 supporters? Yeah, that's notable. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • One supporter proves interest. Fame, media presence, and profitability do not prove validity. The perpetuation of the idea that they do just supports shallow, capitalistic ideals (not that capitalism is all bad... but when it is your only motivation, there is a problem) that degrade and negate the idea of simple concepts like artistic integrity. is the artist doing something at least slightly original? are they doing it for the love of the craft? is anyone paying attention? are those people being encouraged to think and possibly even take action because of this artist and his/her product? if so, then you have an artist of note who has done their job. z0mb1
          • That's all great, but this is about whether or not the band is notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. All evidence so far indicates it is not. Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • An encyclopedia, by definiton, is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject" (Merriam-Webster). This is a repository for unbiased, factual information. It is not the position for a fact record to make moral decision on a subject save that the information is fact and not opinion. Therefore the overall validity of a subject is not to be judged and the information should be allowed to exist on its own merit. There were no opinions expressed in this article, nor falsehood perpetrated... Therefore it qualifies as encyclopedic text. That's the beauty of the information age: that facts, no matter how big or small, can be recorded for posterity and future review. This is not a popularity contest or a celebrity review. It is a place for facts to be recorded and stored.z0mb1
              • There's plenty of information on music and bands on Wikipedia, so I think we're covered on that particular "branch of knowledge". Wikipedia is not intended as a repository of all known facts, but rather, as an encyclopedia, containing articles on all significant topics. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • As long as there are subjects to keep people informed about, there will never be a case of a branch of knowledge being "covered." By that rationale, it would be fair to say that information and news on natural disasters, wars, diseases, and human suffering have been "covered." In Wikipedia's article on itself, it says nothing about it being a judge of information's significance. All that matters is that the information is unbiased, factual, and not just a dictionary definition. z0mb1
  • Delete: Non-notable. Markaci 00:56, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • KEEP David 01:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete:Keep votes solely due to bad-faith recruiting drive. Don't feed the trolls. --Arcadian 05:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bandity article. [Personal attack removed by RSpeer.] Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even just "Entropy five" only gets 25 displayed hits, two of which are VfD. Niteowlneils 00:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I really like how the IP's above are saying such things as "...per Wikipedia's policy, the existence of this article violates no rules" and that Wikipedia allows biographical content. Not to be harsh, but... WRONG. Delete. humblefool 03:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Where is the proof? That's all I'm asking for. comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
  • Delete vanity. —Korath (Talk) 06:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, vanity --JPotter 09:13, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletenon notable, vanity, Fledgeling 21:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Quote "Certain individuals are claiming that this article falls under the category of "band vanity" and is not a valid cultural phenomena simply because E5 is not a world-renowned act that has made millions of dollars." from the bands website is an outrageous slur against wikipedia. You don't have to have done be world-renowned or have made millions of dollars to be noteworthy enough for an article. Rather than throwing accusations, why not demonstrate WHY Entropy Five deserves it's own page. How many copies of the first album did you sell? How many people do you attract to your performances? What record company interest do you have? How widely are you known? If I went up to an average person in your city/town and said 'Have you heard of Entropy Five?', what sort of answer would I get? Make a good faith effort to show you aren't just using wikipedia to advertise, and you actually are of sufficient interest to people GENERALLY to warrant inclusion, and you might just be surprised. Keep bashing wikipedia users for having the temerity to question your inclusion, and see how far you get Djbrianuk 03:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Read over this text string again and tell me that's not what this argument is about. Just because one shares an unpleaseant truth, it does not mean that they are "bashing" anyone.comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
    • Agreed. I find this incredibly insulting. I have written articles on such MTV fodder as the music of Niger, while many other wonderful Wikipedians have written about huge pop stars like Supply Belcher and Attila the Hun (calypsonian). If Entropy 5 has any notability whatsoever, or is of interest to anyone besides the individual in question, show some actual evidence. We're talking about California, here, not an Internet-poor third-world-country, so there must be some evidence that somebody cares on the web. Or hell, cite a book, if you can. Cite a movie or a TV show or radio program, or pretty much anything, but don't just make vague claims about importance and expect everyone to buy it. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • The proof of truth within the "slur," as you put it, is in your comment and the previous one: The artist is upset by the fact that validity is being judged by media acceptance over quality of content. Through your comments you have proven his observation to be true. The fact that the artist exists and that his work is prolific can be found at his site. What more do you need? Is mass acceptance really the only source for notability. In my opinion, if you answer "yes" to that, this situation is truly sad indeed. And as far as referring to this article as "troll bait" goes, I ask you this: Do supporters not have a right to be informed and be heard? I've read nothing on this site to indicate that it was designed to be an exclusive club. Free and open resource means free and open resource. If you don't like it, maybe you should be lobbying for the people who run this site to change some rules. comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
        • If you believe mass acceptance is the only route to notability, you clearly know very little about Wikipedia. Tuf-Kat 16:59, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
        • No, "supporters" do not have a right "to be informed and be heard" on Wikipedia. You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for some sort of vanity site or blog; it is, in fact, an Encyclopedia. "Supporters" can "be informed and be heard" on whatever website Entropy five or its supporters wish to set up on their own dime. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity, troll bait, etc. Gamaliel 04:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Article removed by artist. Entropy5 15:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh. You've already done it. --Marcus22 20:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this have been deleted after five days since there's a majority to delete? GoCardinal 23:03, 7 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. Stormie 09:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worms computer games/Acronyms

Impossibly useful. Wikipedia is not a neologism dictionary. Fredrik | talk 23:52, 25 Jan 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. Stormie 09:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuremberg Diary

Book review with no context. And nothing links to it. --Woohookitty 23:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain for now Weak Delete. As it stands it looks like a POV promo/advertisement for the book. Searching through Amazon.com, this article appaers to have been lifted word for word off Cody Carlson's book review page [8]. Unless anon user 207.46.125.17 is Cody Carlson, this is possibly a copyright violation/plagiarism. Megan1967 23:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote changed to weak delete as per above. Megan1967 01:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, ad, possible CopyVIO, non-notable. Jayjg (TALK)]] 20:17, 27 Jan 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_January_25_b744.html"