Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 28

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. Mgm|^(talk) 21:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Visitation

'A little known althlete', so little known that his name receives no hits on google --nixie 02:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Little known = not notable = not suitable topic for biography under Wikipedia policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. And no context. --Woohookitty 02:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Rje 03:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. JoaoRicardo 05:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 11:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, no relevant Google hits. --Idont Havaname 01:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Also doesn't appear to be a real person. There was a kickboxer in the 1980s named Robert Visitacion, but he doesn't get many hits either. --Idont Havaname 01:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some sort of evidence or source is provided. Gamaliel 01:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE --ZayZayEM 14:52, 6 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 22 / Delete 28 / Meta 14. As it stands, it is a redirect to a Meta page. Consensus seems to be delete, however it has been moved to Meta which is out of juridistion of VFD. The only possibility for this is to either relist it as a Redirects for deletion, or make it as No clear consensus -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Don't be a dick

A jocular guideline page which at first mascaraded as policy. It doesn't cover anything that other policies don't cover, and the juvenile language makes it inappropriate for a policy page, so I see no point in merging. I asked for this page to be moved to user space or meta, but it didn't happen, so I'm listing it here. Zocky 03:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Wetman's question ("Why would you delete this?"):

1. It serves no purpose that's not served by other project pages
2. Its language is border-line vulgar, and certainly juvenile. It's certainly not written in what would be considered conventional style for policies.
3. Having a thing like that in wikipedia namespace, especially categorized as policy, makes us look not only childish, but also dumb (hehehe, I said "butt").
4. It could possibly pass as humour, but it's not really such a good joke that it would need its own page. Zocky 03:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many of the votes to keep (and recategorize) seem to be based on the presumption that this is humour, yet authors of the page insist that it is not humour and is not intended as humour [2]. Zocky 13:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would that be me? I'm not the author - David Gerard 18:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although I've just changed my vote to 'move to meta' - David Gerard 18:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've just moved this to m:Don't be a dick - David Gerard 03:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Snowspinner 03:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta. Neutrality^talk 03:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Recategorize as humor and keep. It's amusing. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Moving to meta is also a good idea. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would you delete this? It's even good advice. It's a sin to tell a lie, but to be dull is a crime: d.b.a.d.! --Wetman
• Delete Redundant, juvenile, and only barely funny ;-) Johntex 03:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• As was suggested by Charles. Recategorize. Cerceole|(talk) 03:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep --SPUI 04:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep you cant claim POV on this because every photo of a person named Dick I could find on Wiki is included! If you want to change a percieved POV upload some other non US politicians known as Dick and Include them.  ALKIVAR™ 04:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nonserious. Move to meta. silsor 04:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Zocky. JoaoRicardo 04:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with Charles P./Cerceole and Silsor. Samaritan 05:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- trust me, it's funny ➥the Epopt 05:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but recategorize as humor because, juvenile language or not, it states what good faith is in much more familiar terms. Agree that this cannot be policy, however — if only because it's an obvious invitation for personal attacks in the name of policy. "You're being a dick" is supposed to comment on behaviour, but legitimizing it this way will also cement it as a personal attack "supported by policy". This, ahem, document, is not so brilliant that it gets to override these concerns. JRM 05:43, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

  Now that it's there, I'd like to replace my vote with what User:Jwrosenzweig said. JRM 02:04, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a good policy.  :) Besides, it's in the Wikipeda space, not the article space. RickK 06:04, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and vote to see if it should be made an enforcable policy. --Carnildo 06:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant, poor humour. →Iñgōlemo← ^{(talk) 06:42, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)}
• Keep. I know a few people who should have it tattooed on their foreheads. Bacchiad 07:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent advice, delivered succinctly and with a little humor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Should be required reading. Mattley 09:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointing someone to this page would be a good example of acting like a dick, wouldn't it? Everyking 11:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ambi 11:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- It's well written and direct to the point. Longhair 11:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep</a> Move to meta. As I put into it, it's the fundamental rule of all Internet social spaces, and every how-to-get-along rule we have is a special case of it. It is possible it belongs on meta: rather than en:, of course - David Gerard 12:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It's true and funny, but everyone knows that a lot dicks just plain don't know how not to be a dick, so there's not much use in telling them not to be one... AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not at all funny, clever or helpful. Nothing more than a rude comment. The author should take his own advice. --LeeHunter 12:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It doesn't even reflect current policy accurately, jguk 13:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Why isn't this in the main namespace?! I've come across the phrase several times recently, so it must be becoming popular. Anyhow, as the article notes, Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and No personal attacks. If nothing else, this is a personal attack by policy; even if amusing, the No personal attacks guidelines seem fairly unforgiving. Ben Cairns 13:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC).
• Delete. It was funny, but that's enough. Carrp 13:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sannse (talk) 13:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Boils a huge amount of verbosely pretentious and confusing m:Instruction creep down to a reasonable size (especially for the intended audience who are most likely to either ignore or deliberately distort all the myriad volumes of policy, semi-policy, thinktank, guidelines, etc.). Oh, and it is funny. older≠wiser 14:08, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• delete / BJAODN - I'm new, perhaps this would be funny if I knew the history behind it. As it stands today, it doesn't seem to fit into a serious encyclopedia, a bit too sophmoric. I think even more important is the obvious offensiveness to everyone's mom. I think contrary to what other says, that being in the wikipedia namespace is more embarassing than in the article namespace. I dont even think this is accurate. I'd say if alot of people said you were a dick, then alot of dicks called you a dick, and who cares what a dick thinks? *shrug* come on guys, is this really that funny? --t9 ^(Talk) 14:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; if it's not indented to be funny, than it's not fun at all Lectonar 14:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Invites personal attacks.--Eloquence* 14:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Intriguing amount of keep votes though. Xezbeth 16:13, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Amusing but not useful. (Or redirect to Matthew 7:12). Dick 16:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. FoeNyx 16:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's value to promote discussion of values has been used up. rob chamberlin 16:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to meta. Agreed, not humor, strikes me more like "ha ha only serious". Personally, I'd like to see this replace most legal policy as well. It deserves public airing, but much as I like it, en: probably isn't the place. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 17:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Robert Pendray 17:20, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 17:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta (historically the place where such things reside) or BJAODN, only Delete if supporters refuse to agree with either of first two options (yeah, I know, it's an Iasson-esque vote, but not much other way of handling this). It is a quasi-humorous expression of the frustration many of us feel with the inability of current policy to deal with POV-pushers who game the rules, dance close to personal attacks, and generally seek to anger/annoy admins into doing something remotely wrong so that spurious RFCs and RfARs can be filed. As such, it might be good to preserve it, but it can't be anywhere that makes it look like official policy. m:The Wrong Version is a classic example penned by Angela -- it is funny, it expresses a frustration we often feel, and it lives somewhere that makes it clear it's not actually site policy. Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  You're right. Move to Meta - David Gerard 18:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  I also would support a move to meta, though I'm content to keep it where it is as well. Snowspinner 19:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (or move) Maybe revise it a bit, but the basic sentiment is valid. — Davenbelle 18:25, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

DRUMMOND. (Honestly.) I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.

    — From Inherit the Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee.

• Merge and redirect. --Michael Snow 18:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 18:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, I question the usefulness of such an article given its original premise as some type of "joke", written in juvenile language. Does Wikipedia need such a named article? I would in this instance politely say no. Megan1967 00:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. bdesham 01:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This is a bluntly stated version of a very fine general policy for living and working with other people. Move to meta, though it sure is tempting to vote keep. Antandrus 04:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Meta or delete. It's bad enough that personal attacks aren't blockable offenses without providing an excuse for more. —Korath (Talk) 04:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Meta or Keep or merge with somewhere. --JuntungWu 16:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (or move/rename). I'd like to see this refactored into a usable bit of policy. I fear the current policies are tending to drift towards rigidity, leaving no room for the plain old "don't be a dick" kind of rules.

I agree the wording does lend itself to personal attacks, but then it's difficult to have policies like this without breaking them being an insult. Changing it into "be reasonable" seems fair until you realise that saying someone's breaking it is saying they're "being unreasonable". Calling someone a troll or sockpuppet is a personal attack, calling an edit ill-researched and ill-cited can be construed as one. Aren't these both policies?

I realise one of the ideals of Wikipedia is professionalism inside and out, but is having a bit of fun on our end going to kill anyone? I personally think this policy makes a point, and it does it in a way that's fun. That's why we're doing this, remember? 'cause we enjoy it? At least, that's why I edit here. CXI 16:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Articles in the Wikipedia namespace are interpreted as "official", and the Wikipedia Talk pages are for commentary on policies, etc. This has not been proposed as a policy statement. If it is not deleted, it will be cited as policy, as there is nothing to distinguish it from Wikipedia space pages that are official policy. It should be on the author's User Talk page, or maybe in meta. From the keep votes, it seems like people believe that anybody should be able to write Wikipedia policy just by giving the page a pithy title. Maybe I should write Wikipedia:Wikipdia should not suck --BM 18:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "are interpreted as official" is curiously in the third person; do you mean that you erroneously do, therefore assume others erroneously will? Being in the "Wikipedia:" space just means it's a project community page, not that it's "policy" per se - David Gerard 03:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do. Is it erroneous? There are quite a few WP articles that are cited all the time as if they were official. For example, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Are those official? From your previous references to them, I take it that they are. How can anyone tell which are policy and which aren't? --BM 12:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Reading the page assists in clarifying these matters, e.g. both of the examples you name being in Category:Wikipedia official policy. HTH! - David Gerard 14:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • It is useful to know about Category:Wikipedia official policy. I haven't noticed that before. --BM 18:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta. Tuf-Kat 18:04, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not appropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta. --Idont Havaname 01:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Don't be a dickhead, Don't be an asshole, and Don't be a fuckwad. Then delete. - Nunh-huh 03:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The only context in which this is every likely to be used is that of dismissive mockery. People will simply say Don't be a dick rather than "Don't be a dick." The link gives it a spurious authority and implied permission to use the vulgarity. If someone thinks that in a particular discussion it will be helpful to tell someone "don't be a dick," they should put the words in their own mouth and take responsibility for them. (I am sooooo tempted to say "They should put the..." must resist... must be strong...) We should not make it easy for people to give the impression that Wikipedia endorses vulgarity as an effective method for group decision-making. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Would that other policies were so succinct. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:02, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta was a good first step. Even there, it needs to be more professionally worded. The "jocular tone" will not come through when the link is actually used in a dispute (and I don't see it being used unless the parties are already in a dispute). Last, I believe we should delete the redirects. Preserve the edit history through other means. We should not encourage inflammatory language. Rossami (talk) 19:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, on basis of arguments already raised. Lacrimosus 19:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, come on, no one would want to keep a "Don't be a cunt" article, so delete "Don't be a dick" for the same reason. Calling someone a genital of either gender is not appropriate. FrankH 01:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes as of 05:24, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Since there were so many votes, I decided to make a tally. When necessary, comments have been added next to the vote entry (Michael Snow's vote to merge with Richard M. Nixon probably means delete). Where users made double recommendations, they are included under both. Hope this helps! →Iñgōlemo← ^{(talk) 05:24, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)}

Keep

1. Snowspinner
2. Charles and recategorise
3. Wetman
4. Cerceole and recategorise
5. SPUI
6. User:Alkivar
7. Samaritan
8. The Epopt
9. RickK
10. Carnildo
11. Bacchiad
12. User:Tony Sidaway
13. Mattley
14. Ambi
15. Longhair
16. Bkonrad
17. Robert Pendray
18. Davenbelle
19. GRider
20. Juntung
21. CXI
22. Jmabel

Delete

1. Zocky (original nominator)
2. Johntex
3. JoaoRicardo
4. Ingoolemo
5. Mikkalai
6. Everyking
7. AlbinoMonkey
8. LeeHunter
9. Jguk
10. Ben Cairns
11. Carrp
12. Sannse
13. Travis9
14. Lectonar
15. Eloquence
16. Xezbeth
17. Dpbsmith
18. FoeNyx
19. Rob chamberlin
20. Rdsmith4
21. Michael Snow (original vote was: merge and redirect to Richard M. Nixon)
22. Megan1967
23. Korath
24. BM
25. Frazzydee
26. Nunh-huh (original vote was: "Merge with Don't be a dickhead, Don't be an asshole, and Don't be a fuckwad. Then delete.")
27. Lacrimosus
28. Rossami (talk) (specifically, the redirects left after the move to meta and rename)

Move to meta

1. Neutrality
2. Charles
3. JRM
4. Silsor
5. David Gerard
6. Mindspillage
7. Jwrosenzweig
8. Snowspinner (main vote went to keep)
9. Antandrus
10. Korath
11. Juntung
12. Tuf-Kat
13. Idont Havaname
14. Rossami

Neutral 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. Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 13818-2

This information is included in MPEG-2, a separate page is not necessary Djbrianuk 03:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, turn into a reirect to MPEG-2 --Aaron Einstein 04:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to MPEG-2. Megan1967 00:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Gazpacho 05:27, 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 Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Branded and Exiled

This entry is apparantly listing the tracks on an album, but it does not say by whom. Nothing here to explain why the topic is notable. Google on "Branded and Exiled" pulls back about 700 hits. Non-encyclopedic. Johntex 03:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• By Running Wild, it's since been added. And their albums Gates to Purgatory, Under Jolly Roger, Port Royal , Death or Glory and Black Hand Inn all presently have track list stubs, and look at those redlinks. 532 Usenet hits for +"branded and exiled" +"running wild" – and 631 web hits, a very rare ratio; perhaps because few if any of these are selling it. But there certainly seems to be enough to say about it uniquely. Keep. Samaritan 05:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now that context has been added. —Korath (Talk) 06:12, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now in light of recent edits. GRider\^talk 18:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, Running Wild were never a major league rock band. Sorry but this just falls under for notability for me. Megan1967 00:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Surprise, surprise. GRider\^talk 00:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It is true :). Running Wild were never a major league band. Megan1967 02:33, 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 move to correctly spelled article. Move/redirect has been done. Joyous 00:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Limbach Flumotoren

A small aircraft engine producer in Germany. Title is mispelled; should be Limbach Flugmotoren. It gets 170 Google hits. I've tried some random entries from list of aircraft engine manufacturers and all get much more than this. JoaoRicardo 04:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Limbach Flugmotoren, then delete mispelled entry. Being an aircraft engine manufacturer for 30 years is alone enough reason for notability, and these guys seem totally serious. -- Egil 07:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Limbach Flugmotoren then add redirect. Megan1967 00:23, 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 that the page has been userfied. Mgm|^(talk) 21:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liigagria

Hoax. I'm pretty sure that there were no Portuguese explorers named "Sillyhat", and it gets worse from there. —Kelly Martin 05:04, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• "Liigagria" gets zero google hits, and "Lii Gagria" returns one hit, Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion. Delete. KingTT 05:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This would be an immensely charming childhood fantasy. Too bad it's probably an adolescent hoax. :\ Delete. (But, sigh. "Up into the cherry tree / Who should climb but little me? I held the trunk with both my hands / And looked abroad in foreign lands...") Samaritan 05:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I already speedied this once before as a patent nonsense hoax and added it to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Strike Back. Read it there if you wish. If "Fernando Sillyhat" isn't enough to convince you it's a hoax, then the photoshopped map of Indonesia should. -- Curps 05:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 00:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved to User:Tajunn/Liigagria, and redirect deleted. -- Curps 05:33, 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 3, Keep/Cleanup 2, Translation/Transwiki 1, Userify 1: No clear consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] João Vieira

This looks like a vanity page/advertising to me. A Google search turns up his personal consulting website, followed by the Wikipedia article. —Pearcej 05:20, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Offer for translation/transwiki if the Portuguese-language Wikipedia wants it. Samaritan 05:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. PearceJ, did you put the vfd tag on the article? Because it's not there now, and I can't find it in history. JoaoRicardo 07:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• An author with three published books, we are told. Assuming that the books are real (ISBN references, please), Keep and send to Cleanup to bring it into line with other articles about published authors. Uncle G 15:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• If no source for the information on this page other than User:Jvieira xemself can be found, then Userfy. Uncle G 15:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • May I ask what "userfy" means? I haven't seen that term before. -Willmcw 23:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, until verification is established this does indeed look like a vanity/personal advertisement page. Megan1967 00:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Googling on the book titles turned up several hits, including online bookstores showing the book covers. I've added the ISBN references to the article. Keep, but certainly Cleanup. Alarm 16:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Three programming instruction books do not notable make, delete. --fvw* 16:58, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically agree with fvw. -R. fiend 06:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If this page as it currently stands is voted down, it should be made a redirect to João Bernardo Vieira, president of Guinea-Bissau.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nukage

Duplicates content at radioactive waste, radioactive contamination, radiation poisoning etc. Seems this was introduced to make a context for the Doom and Duke Nukem references at the bottom. No content to merge to other articles, since this is just a small part of these games. JoaoRicardo 06:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No need to have less well written duplicate of information at a less appropriate title. -- Infrogmation 07:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Duke Nukem, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 00:28, 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 no consensus. Defaulting to "keep." Joyous 00:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funday pawpet show

This doesn't appear to be notable, and I doubt it will become encyclpaedic. →Iñgōlemo← ^{(talk) 06:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)}

• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Inter 09:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I've never heard of it, but it gets more than reasonable results on Google and Google Groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Notes after a few minutes of research, I've found that it's been around for more than 5 years, and has done lots of paid live performances, which puts it well beyond most VfD candidates (teen garage bands, etc) as far as notability goes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Well, if Starblind's research is correct, they're worthy to be included: keep and cleanup. Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Starblind seems to be right. Alarm 17:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Marcus22 20:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Improve it. non-encyclopaedic --Neigel von Teighen 20:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Google does indicate that this is notable, surprisingly enough. (!) GRider\^talk 19:11, 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 no consensus. The article defaults to "keep." Joyous 00:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xenu's Link Sleuth

This seems like one guy promoting his obscure freeware program. RSpeer 06:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• keep. A useful program. Mikkalai 08:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An interesting article and useful stub. GRider\^talk 18:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. None of the people voting Keep have indicated if they've ever heard of this product before or if it is notable. The article does not establish notability. RickK 23:31, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is useful, e.g., for wikipedia maintenance of broken links. If you suggest me another tool that does the same, I may reconsider the vote. Notability is but one of criteria. Anyway, since youare so picky, I did some research. It exists since 1997, and quite a few people are reportedly used it. Broken links are real plague of HTML; I'd say cancer, since there is no uneversal cure yet. So I conclude: the tool is notable. And lastly, google gives 28,700 hits. So I guess none of the people voting to delete researched its notability from other sources. Bad stub does not establish non-notability. Mikkalai 23:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If you had said in your vote that you knew the program and had either used it or knew personally that it was notable, then I wouldn't have needed to post what I did. But since you declined to do so, all I can assume is that you are making a generic "notable" vote because that's the way radical inclusionists tend to vote. RickK 00:45, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • And how then do radical deletionists tend to vote? Please curb your personal attacks, they're unnecessary and generate more heat than light. GRider\^talk 00:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Relax, GR. I am not insulted. And by the way, IMO I am a deletionist, if someone could take the pain to review my votes. :-) Mikkalai 21:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I was all set to vote delete, but Google is giving 15,000 hits for the phrase "Xenu's Link Sleuth", which I can't see applying to much else other than this piece of software, so, Keep. —Stormie 01:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 05:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - not a vanity (I created it as a separate item from Xenu) and I've used it myself since 1997. (It's very nice for what it does.) - David Gerard 22:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I disagree with the people who say this is notable - I don't think it is. →Raul654 19:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, does it make sense to create a Broken link article? Mikkalai 21:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• This is not at all an "obscure" program, unless "obscure" covers programs that don't cost money and come in reassuringly oversized shrinkwrapped boxes. It's a superb program that does its job, runs extremely fast, and produces a sitemap as an incidental benefit. (The only pity is that Tilman will neither bring out a version for other OSes nor release the source code.) Keep. -- Hoary 08:22, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
• Keep. Samaritan 06:18, 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 delete. The anonymous votes were quite highly discounted. Joyous 00:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Astroseries

Another guy and his free game. Why do I keep running into this kind of crap on random page? RSpeer 06:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Infrogmation 07:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Inter 09:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 11:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete -- 64.9.205.95 22:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)Dave
• Don't Delete 66.0.156.3 22:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)Norman Hey don't delete. Maybe this article could be relocated under Stratagus? After all this game seems to be related to that topic (seems a subproject of Stratagus)
• Delete. --fvw* 23:00, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable/verifiable to Stratagus and add redirect. Megan1967 00:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Don't merge into Stratagus, since that game engine is much more notable than this game. JoaoRicardo 00:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 200.44.94.219 20:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Kostas] The person who made this videogame sabotaged my IRC chat server 2 years ago. You definitively have to delete his crap article. Astroseries stinks.
• Delete 200.85.66.110 23:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Delete but also invite the original poster to post his article again, but making sure he does it in a high quality way, with all the required references to other related materiel, to ensure that his contribution will at least be of some value.
• Don't Delete 200.79.48.94 13:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) Article seems ok to be here in Wikipedia.
• Don't Delete 64.9.205.95 21:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) Is it me or the quality of this article improved since I last came?
  • Yes it has, the issue is its notability, not the article content. And anyway, that doesn't entitle you to two votes. It doesn't even entitle you to one actually, anonymous editors cannot vote. --fvw* 22:03, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

• 200.35.213.207 03:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Allright. I am the original poster of the article. Delete it. Actually I am the one who asks for it to be deleted. If what matters here is notability, then by all means delete the article. The videogame will be notable enough in about a year or so. The article can be put back on then. -A. F. Perez

• Don't Delete 200.35.86.44 11:31, 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. Joyous 00:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Committee to Protect Bloggers

Blogger vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I put up this page because I think this group is important. I am in no way involved with the group, I just found the link a few weeks ago in my RSS feed. I think people need to know about people for whom content contribution online is a physically dangerous practice. --Mdog 07:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of your favorite blogs. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• A bit new for comfort, but keep especially if no appropriate merger (some general article on blogosphere-real life interaction controversies?) can be found. This group is not itself a blog. Samaritan 07:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think that failure to include this page and a link to it from Weblog leaves an inacurate story being told regarding the political climate around blogging. We read that the DNC and RNC accredited bloggers, but not about how bloggers in other places are facing state repression for blogging? That doesn't seem benificial to wikipedia's coverage of blogs. --Mdog 07:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The coverage of repression related to blogs should be made via new content in the Weblog article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 08:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too new (days old!) to be notable. It certainly sounds important, but importance is not key... notability is. At any rate, I'd support an external link to this effort from the Weblog article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 07:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Too new. I can recognize the importance of such a group, but it has yet to do anything at all, hence it isnt notable. Inter 09:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like it could be a worthy cause, but that does not make the committee encyclopedic. If the only reason to keep a non-encyclopedic article in an encyclopedia is its importance, then the only end served would be promotion. I applaud the intent of the committee, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of causes -- it is an encyclopedia. SWAdair | Talk 10:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. Notable topic, yes. Notable organization? Maybe. Give it a chance. --L33tminion | (talk) 17:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote new websites or to "give them a chance." RickK 23:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, if and when this group becomes more notable then perhaps I'll change my vote. Megan1967 00:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to be generating lots of hype, but maybe it's safer to wait until they have done something. JoaoRicardo 00:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough, and it has an Alexa rank of 124! Alexa also gives traffic details for at least August 2004.
  • Nice try. That ranking is for all of blogspot.com and that's no surprise. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 05:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Blogger is currently featuring the site as a 'Blog of Note', and that's the only reason I'm voting for its preservation. O
  • Please provide a link to source this. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 03:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Found it at [3]. Yeah, because Blogger notices a brand new blog, let's make an encyclopedia article out of it. This is insanity. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 03:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, nor expandable (at least yet - no page until it is). --bainer 01:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems unnotable as of now. Maybe someday. -R. fiend 06:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Far too new an organization to evaluate notability without evidence of major impact. And since Wikipedia does not speculate on possible future notability, we should not have an article on it until we can say for certain. — Gwalla | Talk 22:49, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 21:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big V.I.C.

Non-notable slang. Nothing links here and the author's (4.241.3.1) contributions [4] are mostly work with slang. --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 08:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Doesn't seem very notable. Inter 09:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough, possible band vanity. Megan1967 00:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Infrogmation 19:33, 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. Joyous 00:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Wittenberg Factor

Apparently an article about a segment on a public access cable show. Probable vanity, as it has been contributed entirely by the same anon user (two IPs, but they are near each other numerically, so I presume them to be the same person). Delete. Suggest removing references inserted into other articles by the same anon user if deleted. --Slowking Man 08:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Google doesn't seem to yield much information at all about this. Inter 09:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Segment of a show, not the show itself. If it showed more evidence of notability, then it might just about be worthy of merging with an article on the show it is a segment within, but I can't find that evidence. Average Earthman 17:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I've actually read about this in the paper, it's certainly not that notable. – Beginning 19:05, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Average Earthman. JoaoRicardo 00:39, 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. Joyous 00:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Wittenberg Factor episodes

Currently empty list related to The Wittenberg Factor, listed above. Created by same anon. --Slowking Man 08:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Same reason as above. Inter 09:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. List of 'episodes' of a three minute segment on a programme on a public access channel. Googling for "Big Sky Live" MCAT gives one hit. So the show that has the segment that contains these episodes does not appear to be notable. Although the station might deserve an article, it's programmes don't, segments in the programmes definitely don't, and list of episodes of segments in the programme absolutely don't. Average Earthman 17:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough (see previous vote comments above). Megan1967 00:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Average Earthman. JoaoRicardo 00:39, 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. Joyous 00:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phonetic pattern

This was tagged as speedy, but is not a CSD candidate. Delete as original research or essay. jni 09:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. One of four, um, pieces of writing posted by this IP in the space of an hour, and the first contributions from this IP. They are all on aspects of linguistics and I'm afraid I can't find any useful content in any of it. Two were edits to existing articles and have been reverted, the other two were new articles and this is one of them. I'll write a greeting to the author when I feel stronger. Andrewa 12:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: But see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Linguistic law for an IMO accurate and far more sympathetic response to these contributions. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research at best, nonsense at worst. JoaoRicardo 00:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Deathphoenix 04:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete as patent nonsense. It bears no relationship to linguistic theory. --Angr 09:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this nonsense. Josh Cherry 01:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research of the "ignorant of existing theory" variety. — Gwalla | Talk 22:59, 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. Joyous 00:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic law

This was tagged as speedy, but has information density over my threshold for patent nonsense. Original research? jni 09:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• You can describe everything about this original research with the two phonetic symbols, Del and ete. --Zarquon 10:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the other article by the author of phonetic pattern, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phonetic pattern. Andrewa 12:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal essay, original research. However... I think this is sensible musing and speculation by someone who is asking reasonable questions, but doesn't seem to be aware of existing answers. See the article on Chunking for a description of how some subjects were able to memorize extremely long strings of binary digits by recoding them into integers. For the use of musical pitch as an information carrier; even English uses pitch already to add information to speech. In effect the question mark is encoded in speech as a rise in pitch at the end of a sentence while the period is encoded as a fall in pitch. My understanding is that in Chinese differences in pitch can completely change the meanings of words. Silbo, used on La Gomera in the Canary Islands, is an encoding of Spanish vocabulary and syntax into pure whistling. I imagine Silbo has seen much wider use than Solresol, a constructed language which either be spoken using the names of the notes of the musical scale or expressed purely in terms of pitch. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree. Quite right about Chinese spoken languages and other tonal languages (hmmm... but I see a couple of problems with the tone (linguistics) article). Perhaps you would be better than I to send a greeting to this newcomer? No change of vote. Andrewa 20:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either original research or a newbie mistake, as expressed by Dpbsmith above. JoaoRicardo 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As a linguist, I find the page patent nonsense. The sentence "We know that English has 440 different phonetic patterns, supposing there are only 440 different things waiting to be expressed" is utterly absurd, whatever the definiton of "phonetic pattern" is supposed to be (and no definition is given). There is such a thing as a sound law in linguistics, but this isn't it. --Angr 09:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Josh Cherry 01:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More incomprehensible original research from the people who brought you phonetic pattern. — Gwalla | Talk 22:58, 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 keep. Mgm|^(talk) 21:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uchhaishravas

Google yields 44 hits on this. Seems not notable. Inter 09:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Hindu mythology. Google is not a good tool to judge whether it is notable or not. Transcription problems also have to be taken into account. / up+land 10:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep things from real mythologies, even if they get 0 hits. Uchaishravas might be a better spelling. Kappa 10:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Uppland. GRider\^talk 18:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, minor character in Hindu mythology. Probably merge or mention in another Hindu article but I cant see this expanding into a full blown article without regurgitating the whole myth from elsewhere. Megan1967 00:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All mythological figures are notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 03:21, 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. Joyous 00:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rishiris effect

Original research. Rishiris doctrine has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rishiris doctrine). --Zarquon 10:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tinfoil hat stuff, unlike the Rishiris doctrine which made a lot of sense but was not encyclopedic. Andrewa 11:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. JoaoRicardo 00:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Xezbeth 17:41, 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 Keep (and Cleanup) - 8 / Delete 5 / Merge and redirect 3: Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Martlet

"The Independent Student Newspaper of the University of Victoria". Marked as a speedy, but it doesn't seem like one. Might be best merged somewhere but no vote from me yet. My vote is keep now it's been cleaned up. Kappa 10:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to University of Victoria, merging a little of the intro. Most of this article is a copyvio from www.martlet.ca/archives/031002/news6.html, but the material doesn't belong in this article anyway. Some of the information (but not the text) could go to various other articles. My first reaction to this listing was that it was unnecessary, as the proposer didn't propose deletion, but I see the problems now and yes, VfD is probably the way to go. Andrewa 12:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• There is an existing category for Category:Canadian student newspapers, which I've added this article to. I strongly object to any attempt to draw a distinction between Canadian student newspapers that are notable enough to have an article and those that aren't, and fail to see how The Martlet is any less notable than American student papers such as The Tartan or the Chicago Maroon, both of which also already have articles. The only acceptable options are keep this, or delete all university newspapers, period; nothing in between is appropriate. I have to say cleanup (I've done some myself just now), but keep. Bearcat 18:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (change of vote). Good refactor. Agree that Canadian (and Australian... hang in there Lleyton) student newspapers should be treated equally to those of other countries, but I think the above argument misses the point on several issues. Academic (;-> now. Andrewa 20:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if I'm missing the point, then please show me where. Because the way I see it, there are only three possible approaches to the general topic of student newspapers: (a) all are notable enough for Wikipedia, (b) none are notable enough for Wikipedia, (c) some are notable enough for Wikipedia and others aren't. I'm genuinely curious to know where the distinction lays for people who believe (c), because I don't personally see where a defensible distinction can be drawn. Bearcat 03:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Peace! But for a start, you still seem to think that someone wants to discriminate against Canadians. Nobody is proposing that, see my comments above and those of others below. Before, it seemed you were arguing that because we hadn't deleted a similar article, we shouldn't delete this one. Two problems there: Firstly, nobody had at that stage suggested deleting this one (not even the nominator). Secondly, we do make mistakes. Precedents are relevant, but not proof. No change of vote (ie still a keep as revised from redirect). Andrewa 08:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • In my original comment, my strong objection was to dividing Canadian student newspapers from each other as notable vs. non-notable; the American examples were raised in a different context. Yes, my point is that American and British student newspapers need to be treated equivalently; I raise that not because I think that there's some conspiracy against Canadian topics, but because if I didn't, this would have either survived or failed the VfD process as an isolated example and the others would have stayed right where they were. Frankly, I think student newspapers are a topic (university athletics teams and student unions would be two more) where we need to have a clear policy on their notability (or lack thereof) which applies consistently, because as things stand, some isolated examples get deleted and other isolated examples survive almost solely on the basis of who happens to show up to vote in that particular case, which isn't acceptable. (For example, the list of member papers at Canadian University Press must consistently link either to member papers or to the university articles. It absolutely cannot be half one, half the other. It also happens to be woefully incomplete at the moment, for that matter, since I can't add anything to it until I know whether I can link to papers.) And just for the record, Canadian topics really have sometimes been held to a higher standard of notability on VfD than their American or British equivalents. I ain't making this up. Bearcat 20:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment: Lots of issues here, but I don't think this is the place to discuss them. We agree on the course of action. I notice you haven't expressed your opinions about student newspapers at Wikipedia:what's in, what's out#Newspapers and magazines; Please consider doing this, although it's (quite explicitly) not a policy document it does have some following. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've merged the stubs for The Tartan and the Chicago Maroon with their respective universities. Gamaliel 21:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Very well and good. There are still plenty of student newspapers existing in Category:Student newspapers, and gawd knows how many more lurking outside of any category. Those were just two examples, not the totality of the issue I was raising. Bearcat 05:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course, but those were the only two I knew about at the time. I've started working on redirecting and merging the stubs in that category. Care to give me a hand? Gamaliel 18:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Frankly, no, because I'm not going to pretend I believe that student newspapers are unencyclopedic or undeserving of individual articles. Bearcat 02:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The burden of evidence should be very high to show that a regularly published newspaper is not notable, and most English and major other-language newspapers not sufficiently notable for the English wikipedia. Some would obviously fail, such as advertising and listing "newspapers." This would not. Bearcat introduces the problems with such an isolated deletion. The article now notes how it was "responsible for bringing about the resignation of the university's president," which is highly important. Besides, I've never had anything to do with the University of Victoria, but I'm interested in it, and it's certainly expandible. (What's it independent of? Was it a response to an oldline establishment student newspaper? Have any subsequently notable people written for it? And so on.) Keep. Samaritan 18:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up and keep. Needs to be copyvio-free (if that's still an issue), but it's certainly worthwhile to have. – Beginning 19:43, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough for an article. A newspaper is not notable per se. As for Bearcat's argument, I'm all for deleting every university newspaper from Wikipedia, unless they are actually notable for something else than simply being a newspaper. JoaoRicardo 23:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, not notable enough for me. Megan1967 00:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Student newspapers are interesting, useful, notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 03:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and any other student newspapers from any country. Gamaliel 03:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; student newspapers are on the wrong side of the line. —Korath (Talk) 05:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then start putting the damned things up for deletion. Just saying student newspapers aren't notable when only one paper is actually up for deletion will only result in that one paper being singled out for deletion and the others being left alone. Bearcat 05:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I fully plan to, if this passes as a test case. —Korath (Talk) 07:21, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Merge and redirect to University of Victoria. I go to UVic, I read the thing every week, and I don't think this is encyclopaedic. And for the record, I'd vote to delete other student newspapers of this miserly stature as well. Lord Bob 10:09, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is that a merge and redirect, or just redirect?
  • And what do you define as "miserly" vs. "non-miserly" student newspapers? Where's the dividing line? Bearcat 19:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a merge and redirect. My bad. And a student newspaper that's churned out a number of Pulitzer-winning journalists or had an impact on major affairs off the campus would probably make the cut, for me. Lord Bob 21:16, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. By default, student newspapers are not notable. Practically every university and college has one. There could be a student newspaper that is notable. The first one in a country or language. A student newspaper where an extraordinary number of a country's top journalists learned their profession. One that has won the Pulitzer Prize, or the equivalent in another country. But the burden of proof is on the person writing the article to establish notability. --BM 16:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to University of Victoria. The argument for outright deletion escapes me. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to University of Victoria. Current content is not sufficient to stand alone as an encyclopedia article. If there is ever a lot more encyclopedia-worthy material, it can be broken out to a separate article then. In the meantime, it is better discussed in context. Comment: To answer Bearcat's question above, I strongly believe the answer is C - keep some and delete others. The decision is a judgment call and often a very difficult one but it should be based on 1) whether the topic is or ever can be encyclopedic and 2) whether readers will understand the current content best if it is discussed separately or in the immediate context of some other article. I disagree with his/her comment that the "member pages at Canadian University Press must consistently link" one way or the other. Piped section links work just fine. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's necessary because Wikipedia has to start taking consistency of organization more seriously than it does. It looks bad to have some things separated out as articles while other equivalent things are strictly subsections of other articles, it looks bad to have an inconsistently-organized list, etc. Consistency isn't taken nearly seriously enough on here; there are far too many ad hoc decisions made in one case and not in another, resulting in poor organization. And also, I've noticed that the unofficial rule for most publications seems to be that any magazine or newspaper with a per issue circulation of at least 5,000 passes the test; why should a student paper be held to a different standard? Bearcat 02:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is the place to discuss it, but I disagree with Bearcat's notion of consistency here. I don't see this as any different than (for example) one might have a list of an author's works with only the major works linking to articles of their own. Is there somewhere more appropriate to discuss this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Merging things like this defeats the object of the category system as the merged article won't be placed in the newspaper category. Philip 02:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Categories exist to serve articles, not vice-versa. —Korath (Talk) 09:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody's suggested otherwise. The point is that the category isn't serving the articles if it can't include 95 per cent of the articles that belong in it; it's of no value to have any articles on student newspapers, even "more notable than most" ones, if they're divorced of their context by the lack of any other student newspaper articles to compare them to. It detracts from the existing articles (and from Wikipedia as a whole) to have any "student newspapers" category at all, if isn't allowed to ever contain more than a fractional subset of that group of topics. (And again, comparing this statement to personal biography articles is intellectually dishonest; "student newspapers" is a finite set of things that are mostly of equal notability to each other, not a potentially infinite can of worms like allowing an article on any person who ever lived would be.) Bearcat 00:05, 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. Joyous 00:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pachiyappa's College

An old college, but is it notable enough for inclusion? Longhair 10:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. One more sub-sub-sub... stub which contains no-no-no...thing. I am suprised. Gtabary 13:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Recolouring the redlinks at University of Madras should be done properly, or not at all. Delete. Uncle G 15:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete (no merge as nothing worth merging). This is the sort of article that merely serves to annoy - better not to have an article than one that contains no information that wasn't on the article it came from. Average Earthman 17:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a decent stub, unless someone bothers to clean it up. JoaoRicardo 23:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only is it a school, it's been around for 160+ years. Needs cleanup, not deletion. --Centauri 03:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • But there is nothing there to cleanup. Better to list under requested articles than to have nothing worthwhile there.Average Earthman 15:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless sub-stub. Gamaliel 04:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Centauri, but I think a redlink would encourage people to write an article more than a sub-sub-sub-sub... --Deathphoenix 04:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 09:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, stubby article that is nothing worth merging or keeping. Megan1967 02:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless sub-stub. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject is certainly worthy of inclusion based on its age if nothing else, but I'm guessing this isn't the way. The physical address and year of founding does not an article make. BTW, I share the sentiments expressed by Centauri, Average Earthman and Deathphoenix. - Lucky 6.9 22:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Xezbeth 06:12, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And add to requested articles.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:53, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smeltish

"A new dialect formed in september 2004". I think this qualifies as a neologism. Thryduulf 10:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete but gently, first contribution by a new user. Andrewa 11:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, not documented anywhere I can find. – Beginning 19:40, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence this exists. JoaoRicardo 23:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I had a private slang when I was in high school too, but I didn't write a Wikipedia article about it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, not notable. Megan1967 00:45, 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. Joyous 00:52, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle stephens

Vanity. Inter 12:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete!!!Glaurung 13:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oh good grief! Delete. Uncle G 14:12, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• delete'. a text-book vanity article (not a vanity about a text-book though). Thryduulf 15:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- :-)~ ~ ~~ Longhair 18:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Kinda made me smile, though. – Beginning 19:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, my...this is a tad vain, is it not? If I may be permitted to emply a somewhat archaic phrase, my initial response to this little tome was "barf out, gag me with a spoon." Off to listen to some Zappa CD's for a renewed sense of purpose. Meantime, delete this. Quickly. Painfully. - Lucky 6.9 19:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Gaaah...! Delete. Joke at poor 'Chelle's expense, like the one below. These should be speedies. Andrewa 21:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another author with great imagination creating fictional characters --Neigel von Teighen 21:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vanity. Agree with Andrewa, these should be speedies. I suspect the Fort Myers soccer team have some pretty sore jaws. -R. fiend 22:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 01:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think this is vanity necessarily. It is more likely someone having fun at her expense. I've reduced it to a sub-stub; so if you want to read the original, you need to go back into the history. --BM 01:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 13:38, 1 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. Joyous 00:51, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Priyanka

Vanity --LeeHunter 12:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete!!!Glaurung 13:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, though it did make me smile just like Michelle stephens did.  :) – Beginning 19:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto. More of the same. You think someone who claims a 4.35 GPA would at least take the time to read the directions! Bye, Priyanka. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 19:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michelle stephens above. Should be speedies, we have no way of knowing what malice may be behind these. Andrewa 21:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The malice isn't evident in the article, though, and there's not a large potentional for invasion of privacy (Remember the 18-year-old whose personal information was listed a while back?). See CSD criterion #3. Uncle G 15:48, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Same as Andrewa, it should be a CSD. Anyway, it's a good start for a fictional story... --Neigel von Teighen 21:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like vanity, probably vandalism when taking into account this user's history. I've listed this user at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. JoaoRicardo 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Either something isn't adding up here, or I have mis-read sophomore. How can a 17-year-old be a sophomore? Anyway, yet another article about a schoolgirl who likes to hang out with boys. Gosh. Delete. Uncle G 15:48, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:50, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 802.3an

This page is basically advertising the commerical site in the external link, which was the entire content of the article when first created (the edit summary was: click link). The first sentence was added by the same user, and probably just scrapes it above the threshold for a speedy deletion. The article adds nothing beyond what is in the Ethernet article, so there is no point in merging it.

Thryduulf 15:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for the same reason (advertising).
• Delete. Pointless.. Goldom 15:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should have been a speedy delete according to the new policies (article consisting only of an external link). And for the time being, information about this should be in IEEE 802.3 until it is actually released. JoaoRicardo 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Shameless plug Selphie 15:46, 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 KEEP (6 keep/5 delete). DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S&P CNX Nifty

KEEP. There is too little info available regarding this key Indian stock market index (National Stock Exchange/ NSE). The index is called Nifty. Please, please, somebody also add the ticker symbol to look up quotations for this index, eg via Yahoo finance (to give an example, the ticker symbol for the BSE Sensex index is ^BSESN).

(Someone else): This article is nothing but gibberish. It is just a long list of companies, with no punctuation whatsoever; it looks like a business ticker.

Red dwarf

• It is the leading stock index of large-cap stocks the National Stock Exchange of India. [5] Keep/cleanup/expand. Samaritan 15:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless is edited into sense soon, I don't think anyone but the original author has a clue what his point of posting this was.. Goldom 15:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is obviously cut-and-pasted from somewhere, though I doubt a list like this could be considered a copyvio. As it stands, there's no article here. 23skidoo 15:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge into National Stock Exchange of India. Even if you solved the low-level issue of formatting the text better, the article doesn't say anything beyond just a list. I've stuck a stub tag on it, in the hopes that somebody will come along and improve the article before the voting is over (in which case I'll be happy to change my vote), but in the current state, I don't see anything worth keeping. BTW, the same applies to CNX Nifty Junior --RoySmith 16:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Based on recent improvements to the article, I'm now happy to change my vote. Now somebody should fix up NASDAQ-100 to bring it up to the quality of this article :-) --RoySmith 14:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep even if it's just a list. Objective lists of prominent companies are encyclopedic. Kappa 16:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • But there needs to be context for such a list and, as it stands presently, there appears to be none. 23skidoo 19:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete S&P CNX Nifty is my favourite S&P CNX. It's way better than the S&P CNX Groovy, the S&P CNX Neato, and the S&P CNX Peachy Keen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • The name may sound silly, but "Nifty Fifty" is a serious term in investment and originated in the United States. MSN Money Glossary. Samaritan 18:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've turned it into a readable chart now. It could probably use more background information, but at least it makes sense now. I hope I did the "series" and "ISIN" sections right; it was hard to read in the original layout. -R. fiend 19:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The formatting is certainly better, but it's still not an encyclopedia article. If somebody who knows about this stuff could add a paragraph or two describing the history of the index, what criteria is used to put companies on the list, it's significance, or anything else interesting about it, then I think it would be worth keeping. --RoySmith 19:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest a move to List of companies on the S&P CNX Nifty or something. There is certainly a precedent for lists, and many (most?) are much less useful than this. -R. fiend 19:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to follow the precedent set by all other articles in Category:Stock market indices. Unless those should all be changed, I think that this is fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:02, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nice job on the formatting, thank you. Kappa 22:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this seems fine now. Compared to other stock index articles like NASDAQ-100, it has even more information. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That list is not an encyclopedia article, and probably never will be. Please don't put that list on National Stock Exchange of India, it would just move the problem from one article to the other. If someone has something to say about this, they can do so in National Stock Exchange of India without the lenghty list. JoaoRicardo 23:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Who's going to update it every time a new company comes onto the exchange?. RickK 23:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC) After reading DDG's comments below, it's clear that I misunderstood this article, and I'm going to vote neutral here. RickK 23:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • RickK, I think that you and several other people here are making a common mistake; you are confusing an index with an exchange. This is not a list of every company that trades on the exchange, but rather a list of the constituents of a very specific index of the 50 highest valued commodoties on the exchange. The list of stocks will never exceed 50, and the list should change no more than once a quarter. This is a highly regulated list, and is quite valuable. You are comparing this list to the NYSE, where the more appropriate comparison is the Dow Jones Industrial Average. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a lengthy list that will need constant updating. Not very useful or practical in the long term, when a mention in National Stock Exchange of India could do better. Megan1967 00:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A quick googling reveals their webpage, and looking at their policies shows that their list of constituents changes once every quarter [6]. These updates are regularly scheduled. The list can never grow beyond 50, which is not that lengthy, expecially when compared to other indices. Also, index length should not be a criteria. The Russell 3000 has 3000 symbols, and is invaluable for evaluating the performance of small-cap stocks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Indexes like these don't change terribly often. I don't see anyone taking issue with the "constant need" to update the Dow Jones Industrial Average for example. The NASDAQ-100 is a longer list without much of an article. Shoudl that be deleted? -R. fiend 01:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. All indexes get updated about once a quarter, and it's big news when it happens, so the fact that the content changes should have nothing to do with whether or not the topic is notable or not. The list is not that lengthy, especially when compared to NASDAQ-100 or Russell 2000, both of which are indisputably encyclopedic. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you look at [7], you'll find twenty-some-odd stock indicies listed, so there certainly seems to be precedent that they are encyclopedic. I think the original complaint about this article was not so much the topic, but the quality of the content, which is no longer an issue after several people have jumped in and fixed this up. It's worth noting that most of the articles include the list of companies, with the notable exception of the Wilshire 5000 , where such a list would be impractical to keep up to date --18:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good to me now, keep. --fvw* 22:04, 2005 Jan 31 (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 2 / Wikisource 3. No consensus -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exsurge Domine

Something for wikisource, perhaps. Assuming it's legit, I haven't verified it. -R. fiend 16:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's legitimate, and we have articles on other papal bulls (see list at papal bull). The lead is a decent stub, just the actual bull text has to be removed. JoaoRicardo 23:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Isn't the translation copyrighted? There's a credit at the bottom. Whether it is or not, we either must move it to Wikisource or delete the text. I vote Move to Wikisource. RickK 23:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikisource, perhaps add a redirect too. Megan1967 00:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The stubby intro wasn't there when I nominated this. Might as well keep that (and hopefully expand), but still transwiki or delete the text of the bull. -R. fiend 01:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • delete the text of the bull. I wish I could use that language on a lot of other VfD votes.  :) RickK 01:27, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but summarise the text of the bull rather than keeping the full (and probably copyrighted) translation. A section should be added on the effect of the bull on church teachings, as well. Grutness|^hello? 07:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the stub, and Move the text to wikisource, copyvio pending Lectonar 08:40, 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 delete. Joyous 00:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lesser five

1. Dicdef: Just a simple dictionary definition. No possibility of enlargement.
2. Unverifiable: Not a single of the ~110 Google hits for the phrase "lesser five" referred even vaguely to the Ivy League or any of the schools.
3. Inflammatory: Seems to be an article designed simply to agitate fans of those schools.

Nohat 17:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable even if it were verified (which appears unlikely). Avoiding boosterism includes not trashing other universities. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a common term, not an actual alliance of any kind, no possibility for expansion. – Beginning 19:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Having been subjected to the vanity and petty competition of Ivy Leaguers most of my days, I've never heard such a term. —ExplorerCDT 20:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dicdef of a non notable concept. JoaoRicardo 22:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons mentioned above. Red Dwarf 09:00, 2 Feb, 2005 (NST)

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 21:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I decided to redirect it to contrarian.

[edit] Contrary

Dictionary definition Rmhermen 17:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• ... for a word which Wiktionary already has. Delete. Uncle G 17:39, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef, already in Wiktionary. JoaoRicardo 22:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redir to Contrarian or make it a disamb between that and Contrary motion. Niteowlneils 21:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Contrarian. Megan1967 00:16, 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. Joyous 00:48, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where's my meniscus?

This search term only gets 251 hits in google, most of which are Wikipedia clones or h2g2 clones. The alexa rank of the given link is over 4 million. Non-Notable, and er... original research? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:24, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• When it is played by a lot more than a scant few people (I count ten members from the "about us" page.) who used to belong to a society at the University of Oxford, then it will perhaps be notable. Delete. Uncle G 17:48, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete. I know I shouldn't bite the newbies, but apart from being very obscure and not in any way widely practised, isn't that rather too nerdy to have any chance of spreading? (I have a degree in Astrophysics, so I know nerdy). Average Earthman 18:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  I don't think you have to worry about biting any newbies. If you look at the history, this article has been around since December 13, 2003. If anything, this is the counter-argument to Jimbo's "5-minute" spam removal hypothesis. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Alexa ranking nearly 5 million in fact; that's worse than mine. Fails the "more notable than me" test. Delete. Raven42 21:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with DropDeadGorgias. JoaoRicardo 22:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough localised drinking game. Megan1967 00:56, 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. Joyous 00:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Borgman

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Man in the Movie

Listed as per Kevin Rector and Wile E. Heresiarch at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phil Stone. This nomination does not necessarily reflect my vote. Uncle G 17:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry, but no. Wikipedia is here to reflect notability, and a film which isn't finished and has no evidence of a distributor is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. It's a sad fact of the domination of the majors that indie films have a hard job getting noticed, but we're not here to fix that. Good luck with the film, but Wikipedia is not a tool to promote it. If it gets a wide distribution or wins a prize at a major independent film festival, then I'll be happy to vote keep for an article. Average Earthman 18:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfinished, non-notable film. Gamaliel 19:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Couldn't find it on IMDb, and even though being on IMDb does not equal noability, not being on is a sure sign of unnotability, if you're a movie or screen actor. -R. fiend 21:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Average Earthman and R. fiend. JoaoRicardo 22:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP! Disagree, it seems like a valid article. On Google "The Man in the Movie" gets 9,660 votes! Carr 00:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • However most of those hits having nothing to do with this movie. -R. fiend 01:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back when it wins an award at Sundance -- or, hell, when it's finished, even. --Calton 01:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - shameless promotion. Kevin Rector 14:43, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xezbeth 06:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. promotion. -Willmcw 23:42, 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. Joyous 00:41, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roy LeRoi

Listed as per R. fiend and Pitchka at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phil Stone. This nomination does not necessarily reflect my vote. Uncle G 17:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

• Delete. Independent film actor - if the bar for 'average actor' is set anywhere near as high as for 'average professor' (in terms of note, not ability) then he doesn't appear above the threshold yet. Average Earthman 18:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not a hoax. He's on the IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Gamaliel 19:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only one role at IMDb, as "French Soldier". Extras are not encyclopdic. Niteowlneils 19:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just because he exists, that doesn't mean he's notable. – Beginning 19:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Getting on IMDb isn't all that difficult, and doesn't necessarily equal notability. Hey, I was an extra in The Time Machine, maybe I should have a wikipedia article. This is either a vanity page or close to it. -R. fiend 19:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Appearing in two movies as a stunt is not evidence of notability. JoaoRicardo 22:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But he's also a comic actor! That's not even mentioned accept to say he plays Dunz in Democrazy! Plank 00:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read the last sentence of the {{subst:vfd}} notice. Uncle G 16:12, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • "He is said ...", "He is supposed ...", "He is estimated ...". Weasel words won't convince people. Cite your sources. Uncle G 14:39, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
• Delete - Kevin Rector 14:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xezbeth 06:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BMG FRAMED GRAPHICS, INC.

This is advertising for a non-encyclopedic company. "BMG Framed Graphics" scores 41 google hits. Rje 17:55, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advert Cdc 19:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advert for a non-notable company. JoaoRicardo 22:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 01:00, 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. Joyous 00:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carolyn waters

Only coattail notability. One of Pink Floyd's Roger Waters' ex-wives (he apparently has three). Seems to have no notability of her own. Wikipedia is not a geneology site. 1000 hits for "Carolyn waters" -glamour -broe, but 99% of them are still for other people that happen to share the name. The fact it's an orphan also indicates Wikipedia does not need this info. Niteowlneils 18:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - agreed. Cdc 19:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Niteowlneils. She should have an article if either she has any achievement of her own or she was very influential in Pink Floyd's or Roger Water's career (like Yoko Ono for John Lennon/Beatles). JoaoRicardo 21:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:02, 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ego surfing

I'm not sure if we need an article on ego surfing, but even if we do, this isn't it. --fvw* 18:42, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

• Delete. POV, unencyclopedic. This is by user Agquarx, who has been inserting extreme POV statements in articles like Poland and Teresa Salgueiro, and has created gibberish articles like this one and datastream. Not sure if this is a clueless newbie or some vandal. JoaoRicardo 20:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article I wanted to list above was actually datapackets. JoaoRicardo 20:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This article is rolling over in ready-ready happy-happy quality, and caused me to experience a cyan-green-yellowgreeen feeling. Delete, Wikipedia is not for stream-of-consciousness. --Zarquon 21:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Paul August ☎ 22:45, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Should have been speedy deleted just because it hurts the eyes.  :) We probably should have an article about ego surfing, but this isn't it. Delete. RickK 23:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic POV. Megan1967 01:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary I've removed all the nonsense and replaced it with a dictdef. --LeeHunter 15:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup, this is a move to wiktionary. I'm not sure why you did it like this though. If you'd just created the ego surfing article on wiktionary and left this to be deleted, the extra effort of moving to wiktionary (is anybody actually doing those anymore?) would have been unnecessary. --fvw* 16:07, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Move to wiktionary. Narrower in scope than googling, but 'to google' has one meaning not represented in the Wiktionary article which is "to look for a proper name, be it person, place or thing, using a search engine to the end of assessing it's internet presence as opposed to finding information about it". Courtland 2005-01-31

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sponseller Group

Advertising pure and simple.Snap Davies18:51, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising for a non-notable company. JoaoRicardo 20:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Paul August ☎ 22:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable adcruft. Okay, fine, just ad, but adcruft is such a nice looking word. --Deathphoenix 04:43, 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. Joyous 00:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neshez

Non-notable band. Only 12 displayed hits, and the only one in English is a Wikipedia article. allmusic.com hasn't heard of them. Niteowlneils 19:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable; 12 Google hits, no reference in AMG or Dmoz. JoaoRicardo 20:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, vanity band article. --Deathphoenix 04:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:56, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. no notability. vandalism. - Beezer 01:25, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• The comment signed "Beezer" was actually added at 04:25, 2005 Feb 2 by 128.226.202.43, who seems to like trying different signatures: here we see him vandalizing another VfD page by removing my comment, replacing it with his own (saying the virtual opposite), and adding my signature to it. -- Hoary 06:33, 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. Joyous 00:34, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipes.com

Non-notable website--21 displayed hits. According to the article, less than one month old. Alexa rank of 3,703,838. Niteowlneils 20:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --fvw* 23:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough, website advertisement. Megan1967 01:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable ad. Despite its name, Wikipedia is not a wiki encyclopedia about other wikis. --Deathphoenix 04:44, 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 no consensus, defaulting to "keep." Joyous 00:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow University Students' Representative Council

Non-notable, apparently average college student council--134 hits. Niteowlneils 20:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no eveidence of notability. If anybody wants to merge into Glasgow University that's fine by me. --fvw* 23:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. More than notable enough. --Centauri 03:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously not notable enough. Gamaliel 04:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The case for the notability of Glasgow University Students' Representative Council is far weaker than those for Glasgow University Union and Queen Margaret Union, in part because of the limited scope of the institution makes there very little to be said about it in its own right. Unlike the other two, this article could be merged into University of Glasgow (from which it sprung due to a dangling hyperlink). Weak Keep verging upon Merge with Redirect. Uncle G 15:36, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge and redirect for the reasons given by Uncle G. / up+land 16:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, reasonably large and/or old student councils and students' unions merit their own articles, and this one has been around for 118 years. Alarm 17:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Less than notable enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Student groups at universities are generally not notable, and this one conforms to that general rule. --BM 18:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Prefer delete but I'll live with redirect (which is more likely to prevent the article from reappearing). Rossami (talk) 23:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article doesn't mislead about it's subject's notability, and it looks like a legitimate separate topic. dbenbenn | talk 21:06, 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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow University Union

Just some college student social club. If someone really thinks the info is encyclopedic, University of Glasgow seems to have plenty of room. Niteowlneils 21:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, if anybody wants to merge into Glasgow University that's fine by me. --fvw* 23:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Retain, this is not just any old social club, it is an important student body, it is also notable as the last student union in the world to ban women from membership, it was quite a struggle to get this overturned. If this is not notable enough quite a few entries might be deleted, I have tended to take a broad minded attitude to this in the past. It could create space problems to merge some of this into the main Glasgow University entry. PatGallachertalk 01:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Student unions are inherently notable and encyclopedic. Keep.--Centauri 03:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 04:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 06:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (or merge). I certainly want this kind of information somewhere in an unlimited-size encyclopedia. Kappa 06:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written article on an old (1885) and significant student organization at an important university. / up+land 11:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Samaritan 14:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The student union deserves at most a mention in the article about the University. User:PatGallacher says merging this into the main article would create "space problems". That basically means that the University Union is not even significant in the context of an article about the university. If that is so, it certainly isn't significant enough to have an article on its own. But, in fact, the interesting features of the student union situation are already the subject of several paragraphs in the main article. --BM 14:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The "space problems" are due to the article size of University of Glasgow, and are nothing to do with significance. Uncle G 15:09, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
• Comment. Votes like this one make me begin to think VfD (and Wikipedia in general) is a waste of my time. Between the two-thirds "consensus" requirement to delete an article, and the cadre of VfD habitues who will vote to keep almost anything, it seems that it is almost impossible to keep junk out of the Wikipedia. Practically the only things that can be deleted are the most egregious vanity articles written by high school kids about themselves and their bands, patent nonsense, and extremely bizarre original research. At the rate crap articles are accumulating, Wikipedia is sure to hit the one million article "goal" very soon, and most of it will be complete junk. I wonder whether Google will continue to give Wikipedia a high PageRank when three-quarters of it is trivia and crap, even if the other quarter is a useful resource? How low can the signal to noise ratio fall before people give up? --BM 14:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That is just so silly. Who is going to think, "Oh Wikipedia has a trivial article about such and such, so the articles about Shakespeare and particle physics must be crap"? Philip 15:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You miss the point. If I happen to find a good article in Wikipedia, I can tell whether it is good. But what if an article title comes up in a Google search? Or, what if I see a non-red link in another Wikipedia article? At some point, the probability that a Wikipedia article is going to be vanity, some narcissistic aspect of so-called Internet "culture", popular culture sub-trivia, something from a fictional universe, a sub-stub, a moronic list, or something else exasperating will mean that it won't be worth the probable annoyance of following the link. "Results" in Google searches from Wikipedia and its mirrors will start to be a plague, if that hasn't happened already in some areas. --BM 15:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do some new page patrolling sometime. You'll witness that there is a significant amount of junk that is kept out of Wikipedia every day. This article is nowhere near being in that category. Uncle G 15:09, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
    • I did do new page patrolling at one point. You are correct that CSD gets rid of a lot of junk. It could get rid of much more if people would trust the administrators. The recent CSD policy vote shows that basically people will not trust the administrators; they insist on voting on anything that requires on any judgement at all. My experience from new page patrolling is that if something is not an obvious CSD candidate and has to go through VfD, it is an uphill battle to get it removed, unless it is such outright vanity or nonsense that nobody has the nerve to vote to keep it. Every keep vote has to be answered by more than two delete votes, and since people who are opposed to an article insist on voting "Merge" or "Redirect" (which equate to keep), it is actually even worse. In practice, deletion requires near unanimity. Each VfD failure to delete an article becomes a precedent for keeping other junk. On the next VfD about something similar, there will be people saying, "If we can keep X, why can't we have Y, which is at least as notable (etc) as X". So junk and precedents to keep junk are accumulating exponentially. As for this article, we are in the process of setting the precedent that not only every university on the planet will have an article, but also every university student organization that can mention any minor curiosity. The fact that the University of Glasgow has a strange student union structure is a minor wrinkle that perhaps merits a mention in the article on the University. It doesn't elevate the two student unions to the point where they should have articles of their own. --BM 15:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A rather insensitively phrased nomination from a user who appears to be completely lacking in knowledge of British universities. Philip 15:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• There are approximately 700 students' unions in the United Kingdom. They don't all deserve their own articles, by a long chalk. Student unions are not inherently notable. However, those rare few that stand out from the crowd, and are notable, certainly do. The distinctly odd structure, the debates on joint membership, and the struggle over sexual equality make this one stand out from the crowd. Keep. Uncle G 15:09, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
• Keep I am one of those habitues that almost always votes keep. --JuntungWu 16:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, reasonably large and/or old student councils and students' unions merit their own articles. Alarm 17:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Chris 23:44, 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. Joyous 00:17, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Man Meets Dog

This article consists of a single sentence telling the author of the book with the same title. Only the page about the author links to it, and there has been no activity on this page since March 2004. slambo 21:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I suspect this book is sufficiently notable for an article, but keeping subsubstubs that aren't getting work isn't useful. --fvw* 23:20, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Keep, book has some notability, article needs expansion. Megan1967 01:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Expand, otherwise delete. The book seems notable enough, and so does author Konrad Lorenz, but if this article doesn't get expanded (by someone in the know), a redlink article is more likely to get someone to contribute than a substub. --Deathphoenix 04:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded; what Deathphoenix said. It's been a substub for close to a year now. —Korath (Talk) 06:09, 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. Joyous 00:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carine Sturgeon

Non-notable student. 3 displayed hits, including her angelfire.com page. Niteowlneils 22:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Paul August ☎ 22:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --fvw* 23:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 04:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Hopefully, she will become notable enough for an article someday. From her angelfire space: "Carine's mission in life is to make sure every child and adult with a learning disability gets the proper help needed... Someday she hopes to start a charity that will provide anyone in school with tutors and resources needed to achieve a education free of charge." But, yes, delete what could only possibly be vanity now. Samaritan 06:54, 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. Joyous 00:32, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alter studio

Vanity. Paul August ☎ 22:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --fvw* 23:25, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete school project vanity. --Deathphoenix 04:58, 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. Joyous 00:32, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Bruno Borgman

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:30, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Stern

Non-notable roadie and website manager for Good Charlotte[8]. Niteowlneils 23:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --fvw* 23:25, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh. Delete as an extreme case of vanity. Either that or his girlfriend put the page up. 23skidoo 05:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity, even if his hair is red hot and fiery yellow. --Deathphoenix 05:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 01:55, 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 20:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nivbed

Non notable has no potential to become encyclopedicGeni 23:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --fvw* 23:25, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

The article itself is no good - it's basically not even a stub, since it gives no real details about Nivbed aside from the user's opinion. However, as a matter of public record, I would say Nivbed is most certainly notable. His real name is Justin Cherry, and he's either one of the art directors or senior art director for Troika Games. Considering that his particular style of art isn't exactly all the rage with the public, no, he's not fantastically known. But he's not any more non-notable than, say, Christopher Shy, Marc Sasso, or Chad Michael Ward. Well, maybe slightly less notable than Chad Michael Ward. I suggest the author of the post re-write it; if the quality improves, keep it. If not, delete it, and I'll write a better one myself. --Adarael 7:33, 2005 January 30

• Keep, needs expansion, I'm taking Adarael's word for it on that. Megan1967 04:36, 1 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. Joyous 00:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casting Pearls

Not notable (do not confuse with the Melys album when googling). --fvw* 23:06, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

• Delete, not yet notable enough, band vanity. Megan1967 01:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the international tours bit can be verified, as the band would thusly meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 05:57, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Might be propaganda --Neigel von Teighen 20:07, 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. Joyous 00:27, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcelo Albuquerque

Article doesn't establish notability, just that he went to college and has some unnamed job at a newspaper. 1000 hits for "Marcelo Albuquerque", but many, if not most, are for other people, like " Marcelo Albuquerque de Oliveira". Niteowlneils 23:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --fvw* 23:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete. Why is this not a CSD??? --Neigel von Teighen 23:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which case? There may be admins that would stretch the definition of 'test page' or 'vandalism' far enuf to cover it (cases 2 and 3), especially if the editor's other edits are iffy, but it certainly doesn't seem to meet the criteria for case 1 or 4 and above. Niteowlneils 03:56, 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. Joyous 00:26, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otto Perry

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 23:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete not-notable. Johntex 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on the grounds that this reads like either an ad or vanity. If some evidence of notability can be found, might be worth a rewrite based on information present, but I'm not holding my breath. 23skidoo 04:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. About 1,210 Google hits for "Otto Perry", but didn't seem to be the same one. "Dr. Otto Perry" got 13 Google hits, "Otto Perry" naturopathic got 6. Despite my best efforts, he doesn't come out as being notable enough. --Deathphoenix 05:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• There is a notable railway photographer of that name, but this isn't him. Delete. -JYolkowski 03:10, 1 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. Joyous 00:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joao carlos silvestre

In Portuguese.

A story about 13 year old João Carlos Silvestre murdering 22 year old Eduardo da Silva on March 15, 2003. No proper context; no city mentioned; Google on a combination of both names brings no hits. Either a hoax or simply not notable at all. I was very tempted to speedy it. -- Curps 23:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable enough, possible hoax, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy as possible threat/harassment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 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. Joyous 00:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capslock friday

Only 10 google hits. [--Johntex]

• DELETE. --FVW* 23:28, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Delete!! --Neigel von Teighen 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE. HEY, IT'S FRIDAY. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE. GAMALIEL 23:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete. (1) its too soon to say if its just a fad (even the article says so) (2)caps lock is and alwyas has been consider shouting, and thus rude and so is unlikely to gain widespread support. (3) its non-notable (nothing relevant on a quick google) (4) it might be considered a neologism (5) this article seems to me to be desgined to propogate the fad (6) its completely pointless. need I go on? Thryduulf 23:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but I have a swell idea: Strikethrough Saturday It's tomorrow! C'mon, everybody! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• why not follow it with ^{Superscript Sunday}?

• Delete. Sorry, it's Saturday where I am. --Calton 01:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I recall a few months back we had International Caps Lock Day or something. I believe it was deleted after some partisan debate. This is just more of the same. Now how about Type In Orange Tuesday? -R. fiend 02:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE, NN. IT'S STILL FRIDAY FOR NINE MORE MINUTES. --Deathphoenix 04:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I pxrsonxllx sxpport rxndxm x wednexdax. Dxnnx☯ 05:35, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

* I'm all for Monospace Monday, but vote delete on this one. --Plek 13:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• on any day of the week, DELETE THIS!!! --Idont Havaname 01:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I personally

prefer

Whitespace Wednesday. Szyslak 06:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Apart from anything else it's a bad idea. As this site is on the WWW we could have a lot of confusion. Different time zones may lead some people to be on CAPS LOCK FRIDAY whilst others are on Strikethrough Saturday. Due to Peer Pressure and not wanting to feel odd one out some users may feel obliged to use CAPS LOCK FRIDAY even though, where they live, it is Strikethrough. It is a sure cause of unrest and elitism.... --Marcus22 13:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • X'M SXRX WX CXXLD XRRXNGX SXMXTHXNG... --FVW* 14:28, 2005 FXB 2 (XTC)
• Delete. Non-notable "tradition" on messageboards at most a year old. I'm pretty sure this was an attempt by some on 4chan's /b/ board to supplant "furry friday" (where /b/tards—don't give me that look, that's what they call themselves—alternate between posting furry porn and complaining about furries). — Gwalla | Talk 23:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It died a while ago, I think. Delete on wiki wednesday? humblefool® 00:50, 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. Joyous 00:23, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prairie Dawgs Agility

Page is an advert for a non-notable dog training school. --TenOfAllTrades 23:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete though I think there's a great article to be written with this title. I'm gonna go buy some tiny orange traffic cones and a stopwatch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. For what it's worth, there already seems to be an article about this sport at Dog agility. --TenOfAllTrades 23:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Scoop this spam. But oh, the picture is so cute! I wish the article text didn't attribute a copyright to it; it would be nice elsewhere. Samaritan 23:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough, obvious advertisement. Megan1967 01:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Kill spam. Kill all spam. Bearcat 20:39, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 20:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentally

• Entire article consists of an exact duplicate of the Wiktionary entry. I had initially speedied it at another user's request, but since I'm not entirely certain (on reflection) that it's OK to speedy it, I'm putting it here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's only a list of two broken links --Neigel von Teighen 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• A redirect to fundamental would do no harm. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, none of the articles in fundamental deal with fundamental in the sense that is meant in fundamentally, so I suppose, in a way, it would do harm... as in being an inaccurate redirect. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you look at Talk:Fundamentally You'll see that the article was created by mistake by the author, who added a speedy delete request to the talk page. So it seems it would qualify under the new speedy delete rules, uder sole author request. Paul August ☎ 00:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hehe, I just noticed that on my own and came here to inform everyone. D'oh. Speedying it now. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:29, 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.