Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] January 31

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 03:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drum On Yo Back

Vanity. RickK 00:01, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, agreed. dbenbenn | talk 00:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, three hits on Google. — Asbestos | Talk 02:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 19:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scan-Optics Inc

Advertisement, not notable. I've lived in Manchester, Connecticut almost my entire life and I've never even heard of the place. – Beginning 00:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this "solution provider". dbenbenn | talk 00:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Week delete. 8,500 Google hits show some presence in the world, but that's not a lot for a tech company. If kept, it should be cleaned up to stop it sounding like advertising. — Asbestos | Talk 02:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this promotion. Edeans 06:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ad. Carrp | Talk 18:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 04:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheryl Crane

Non notable individual. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. She doesn't appear to have done anything but have Lana Turner as her mother. Removed vote, but don't know if she is notable enough to change it to a keep. — Asbestos | Talk 11:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • ...apart from the small matter of stabbing to death her mother's mobster boyfriend with a kitchen knife when aged 14, in a celebrated case that was judged to be an instance of justifiable homicide [1]. Keep and expand. --Centauri 05:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • ...which the article makes no attempt whatsoever to explain. "Lana Turner's daughter" is not an article, neither is it evidence of her notability. Expand it and I might reconsider my nomination. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bad content is not an excuse for deletion, it is an oportunity for expansion. --Centauri 11:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the case may be notable, but the person isn't. --fvw* 06:22, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Keep per Centauri. Would we delete Cheryl Crane and keep, uh... Cheryl Crane case? Samaritan 06:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. JuntungWu 09:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This time, Centauri's right, though there's no hint of notability in the article itself. JADP: Johnny Stompanato, the victim, shows up as a character in L.A. Confidential. --Calton 23:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 01:31, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Samaritan's reasoning. This is really an article about the case, for which it would be problematic to find a better title. -- Curps 02:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, while the case and her mother is notable she isn't that notable herself. Megan1967 05:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable mother plus involvement in heavy court case makes her notable. Capitalistroadster 07:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Might be notable as a case, but not in this format. Expansion definitely needed - Skysmith 09:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's even got the reference there in the article as to why it's a keeper - David Gerard 16:17, 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 03:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Rumpaa

This is nonsense. We don't know of any extrasolar planets anywhere near 25,000 ly away, as far as I can tell (not to mention the other flaws). LizardWizard 01:53, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedily delete as patent nonsense. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 03:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Lommer | talk 03:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - nonsense Skysmith 10:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very poor hoax or some fancruft. jni 10:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense. JimmyShelter 15:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as patent nonsense. — Asbestos | Talk 21:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. I think rumpa is sexual slang in some European language. -- Curps 21:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. DJ Clayworth 22:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 03:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doemain

Minor web comic, not notable --nixie 02:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep it can be improved, but should stay. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. 8,500 hits for "Doemain of our own", don't know how many for just "Doemain" (it's a common enough name), is pretty good for an online comic. Clearly some notability. — Asbestos | Talk 21:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Matteh (talk) 19:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 19:22, 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 6 / Redirect 3: delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary processes

The name is deceptive, appears to be a summary of some original research to do with computing--nixie 02:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It feels like advertising for gilb.com's particular flavor of the iterative development software design methodology. --Carnildo 02:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 06:23, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete this. Probably should replace with redirect to evolution or evolution (disambiguation).--ZayZayEM 13:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Given that his email address is from Gilb, this is obviously vanity, advertising, and original research. 4 hit for "Evolutionary System Development Processes" means it's entirely non-notable as well. — Asbestos | Talk 21:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Evolution. Megan1967 02:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hard to decide between spam, advertising or original research. Regardless, delete. After the history is clean, a redirect might be appropriate to keep it from coming back. Rossami (talk) 04:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Evolution - David Gerard 16:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. dbenbenn | talk 04:19, 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 delete. Joyous 03:31, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jansegers

Weird page of external links to people with the family name Jasengers, might be genealogy? --nixie 02:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, probably genealogy yeah. --fvw* 06:24, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete, genealogy, but not notable --ZayZayEM 14:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:40, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Dr Gangrene 10:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. Joyous 03:34, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feeding babies in emergencies

  • Copyvio of [2][3]. Not appropriate for Wikipedia in any case (maybe Wikibooks). Neutralitytalk 02:53, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as a duplication of content (I already marked Feeding Babies In Emegencies as a copyvio on the 22nd). --fvw* 02:57, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Ganymead 00:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I suspect that it's spam, not copyvio. I recall seeing some attempts at shoving this in various tsunami-related places. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 7 delete and 5 transwiki. No votes suggested that this article should remain in the Wikipedia space. I am going to exercise my discretion and add it to the transwiki queue. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Technology Center vs. Netcom

Was about to transwiki to Wikisource then wondered whether or not this sort of thing would be welcome there. It's certainly unencyclopedic. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 03:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no transwiki. Appears to be non-notable court case. Neutralitytalk 03:02, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. User is obviously promoting an agenda. – flamuraiTM 03:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonencyclopedic. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 04:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd agree. Transwiki isn't a good idea if it's not notable. If every run of the mill case went into WikiSource, it'd get bigger than Wiki can handle. --Woohookitty 06:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. The case was so notable I've heard about it. It was over Usenet publication of the controversially secret "Advanced Technology" of Scientology; Religious Technology Center is the corporate power-behind-the-throne that owns Scientology doctrine by its ownership of the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Besides transwiking, add a mention at Scientology and the legal system. Samaritan 12:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Trans. --JuntungWu 14:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. But this case is fairly notable, and there should be an article about it, or at least discussion under Scientology, if there isn't already. --BM 20:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not notable enough, POV un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. GRider\talk 19:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Change of vote to transwiki, agree with David Gerard. GRider\talk 18:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. This is an important and historical case - one of the first serious legal tests of an ISP's liability for material transmitted over their network (in 1995, before the DMCA was passed). But just putting up the decision isn't an article. (I speak here as a subject matter expert.) - David Gerard 16:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I already commented about this on that article's talk page. This text really doesn't comply with Wikipedia's standards, and frankly, I can't see any use for it here. Maybe it could be tranferred to some other sister project, but I don't know about those. The way it is, I don't think it should be kept here. In that case, it would need some hard work done on it.--Kaonashi 04:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or delete: there's nothing here but what a copy of a court document. However, contra above comments, this was a notable case. It involved the Church of Scientology trying to sue someone for posting their secret religious texts online, as a violation of "trade secrets" and as a copyright infringement. This was pre-DMCA, so the court had to work out its own concept of how much Netcom, the poster's ISP, should be liable for the conduct of one of its users—the case is notable for anyone wanting to study the Church, IP law, or the development of internet law in the 1990s. It should have its own article eventually. This obviously just isn't it. Postdlf 22:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And I just realized that some of the above comments already pointed this out...  : ) Postdlf 22:37, 10 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 03:34, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben goten78

He seems notable, but only within the RuneScape community. That's not enough for Wikipedia. Note:This appears to have been speedied before, in November. Delete.-gadfium 03:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity page. – flamuraiTM 03:52, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. HE ROOLS!! (sic) jni 08:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.--ZayZayEM 14:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity JimmyShelter 14:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. - GSGold 23:50, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 16:16, 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 DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 03:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greg D. DiGregorio

This guy was up for VfD a while ago, but was never deleted, even though he got only 1 keep vote (from Pitchka, and I'm starting to wonder what his interest in people associtaed with Eric Borgman is). Got about a couple dozen google hits, but I think his IMDb entry says it all. For previous VfD discussion see here: [4] -R. fiend 05:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • How odd, I didn't even know you could have an empty IMDB profile. Anyway, I think User:ContiE just forgot to do the actual deleting, seeing as 80% delete votes is clearly a delete, and the comment on archiving was prepdel, which I assume means "preparing for deletion". I've deleted the article and if noone objects we can get rid of this VfD. Good catch fiend! --fvw* 06:28, 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 delete. Joyous 03:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elona Bojaxhi

This model and "actress" (IMDb gives her 1 uncredited role) gets 209 google hits (very few for a model), and the first page is mostly wikipedia mirrors. Promotion. I'd call it vanity, but I don't think she wrote the article, though the result is much the same. -R. fiend 06:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 06:32, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I trust lack-of-information on IMBd as much as google hits for Vfd on not-notable status. Has anyone investigated her fame in Albania?--ZayZayEM 14:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Short of travelling to Albania for first hand research, the only way I know to investigate such things is the internet, and that's where google comes in. The creator of this article has been part of an effort to promote other unknowns in wikipedia, and I strongly suspect him of being a particular aspiring actor/director who is being shamelessly promoted by himself and anons all over the place (some efforts qualify as vandalism). I'm tempted not to assume good faith in this case. -R. fiend 16:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • She's not known in Albania (well, maybe to friends and family). Dori | Talk 02:59, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP... Definitely notable. She's even listed at Filmbug! Plank 00:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 02:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 19:52, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dori's word is good enough for me on things Albanian. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Edeans 06:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Let's err on the side of being a comprehensive resource.Zantastik 07:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 18:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 02:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 6 keep, 5 merge, 1 delete.

[edit] Intactivist

This duplicates genital integrity. We don't have pages for "communist" or "libertarian" (or they're redirects), instead we talk about the subject, not the people. —Ashley Y 06:08, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

  • Merge/redirect. You can use a {{merge}} tag for this kind of thing, or just merge/redirect it yourself.

Keep intactivist and move it to intactivism, and keep genital integrity where it is, per Samaritan below. Kappa 06:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I listed it here, but the results were inconclusive (only one non-anonymous person opposed merging to two people in favour). —Ashley Y 06:31, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Then be bold and merge/redirect. Samaritan 12:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to genital integrity. --fvw* 06:33, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • REdirect +merge--ZayZayEM 14:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - as AshleyY correctly states, this has been debated both on the article talk page and on a policy page, with no consensus emerging to delete or redirect. On the article page, the discussion was split 1 to 1. On the policy page, there were two votes to merge compared to two (one of which was anonymous) to keep. Raising the issue a third time smacks of "forum shopping" until the desired vote is reached. The article should be kept seperate for two reasons: (1) Intactivist has an interesting etymology that would be diluting the main topic of the article at Genital integrity. (2) The communist/communism argument for merging is weakened by the fact that the Genital integrity article tends to use the term "Genital integrity advocate" as opposed to "intactivist". It is possible not everyone who self identifies as a "Genital integrity advocate" would necessarily self-identify as an "intactivist" and vice versa. Keeping the two articles seperate does a better service. Johntex 17:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep (change of vote). Samaritan 21:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In that case, why not use "intactivism"? —Ashley Y 03:33, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
You're right; that would be much better, and in keeping with Wikiusage elsewhere. Samaritan 06:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Samaritan, can you please clarify this comment? Are you suggesting Genital integrity should be renamed intactivism to be consistent with Ashley Y's examples of communism and libertarianism? Johntex 07:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm voting to keep intactivist and move it to intactivism, and keep genital integrity where it is. Sorry for any confusion. Samaritan 14:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Samaritan, for the clarification. Johntex 17:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 02:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect rather than delete. —Ashley Y 03:32, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Keep U$er 06:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Expand the article. Force10 06:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with genital integrity & redirect. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There isn't much to say about this beyond the fact that this is another name for a supporter of the Genital integrity movement. "Genital integrity" seems to be the more widely used term, and "intactivist" seems to be a dicdef at best, or a neologism at worst. There doesn't seem to be much to be said about it beyond a definition and a link to Genital integrity. Any expansion of the article is going to duplicate the information in Genital integrity. If the article is not deleted, which is my vote, at least it should be redirected to Genital integrity. --BM 02:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to genital integrity. — Gwalla | Talk 01:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 02:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coinspinner

This is one of 12 swords with their own articles from Books of the Swords. I am concerned that including the poems about each sword might violate copyright, in addition I don't think that the 12 swords from the series of books each requires its own article and think a merge back to the main article and deletion of the 12 individual articles may be required--nixie 06:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • As long as all the information is kept (which would probably mean keeping a good chunk of the text intact), there's no reason not to merge and redirect. But I wouldn't weep to see this kept as a separate article. Meelar (talk) 06:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no need for 12 separate articles. --fvw* 06:33, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Merge, no redirect. The content is valuable enough that it should be merged, I suppose. The names of the swords are common enough (e.g. Stonecutter) that redirects don't seem wise. LizardWizard 08:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. —Korath (Talk) 09:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) The merge with the other eleven is acceptable. —Korath (Talk) 08:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Long time reader, first time author! My initial thought was to keep all the sword stuff on one page, but then as I was writing it started to get unweildy, so I split it up when I created it. I also found it made it easier to reference from one sword page to the next. However, I would be happy to merge all 12 articles into one and turn the seperate pages into redirects. I'd hate to merge it all into the main Books of the Swords because I plan on further editing, adding to, and revising that, but bow to the authority of the other wikipedians. Also, RE: copyright violation, I think that quoting the verse for each sword meets the criteria for fair use, in that its for educational purposes, the amount of material is small comparied to the 10+ books of source material, and are a small part of the total article contents. But again, I defer the more experienced wikipedians.Akerkhof 15:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, no redirect: of no significance or interest to anyone but a fan of the book series. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this fancruft. I agree it is unlikely to interest any but a fan of the book series, but the same could be said for lots of topics covered here. There are apparently 10 books in the series, which is a substantial number of books, I assume they must have found some audience. "coinspinner"+"sword" gets 550 hits on Google, which is not too shabby. I'm not saying this series has achieved any where near the cultural impact of Star Wars or Star Trek, or The Simpsons, but these and other lesser franchises have spawned numerous articles here. For example see "Category:Star_Wars_characters". Johntex 18:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge somewhere. Kappa 20:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 03:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely "fancruft", but well written, topical, and directly related indeed to a very lengthy series by Saberhagen.Strong Keep. Being one who has read this whole fantasy epic a few times, I will also give the contributor a thumb's up. Now, where did he leave the other swords...? I hope the main article links to these other pages you have established? Weaponofmassinstruction 05:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Twelve articles on swords from a series of novels seems excessive. I suppose my protest won't go far when there are so many articles already in the Wikipedia about items from fictional universes, but I don't think those articles should be there, either. --BM 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge this somewhere appropriate. GRider\talk 19:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hope I'm doing this right and not messing up ettiquete, but since these are my articles and the main criticism is that they take up 12 seperate articles, I've gone ahead and merged them all into one at Twelve Swords of Power. I even think they all read that way better. Is it possible then to place redirects from the individual articles to each subheading? Do I wait until this VfD is complete?
  • You can create links directly to the section using the format [[Twelve Swords of Power#Coinspinner|Coinspinner]]. Unfortunately, page redirects can not yet reach down to a specific section. You can replace the content with #redirect [[Twelve Swords of Power#Coinspinner]] but it will still take the reader to the top of the Twelve Swords of Power page. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think the redirect thing is a "not yet" thing as much as a "not" thing. Redirects get done server side, whereas going to sections is done client side. I suppose it could be hacked up to work with javascript, but it isn't possible to make redirects to sections work across the board. --fvw* 04:41, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
    • Bummer. Well, I think the way its working right now isn't too bad. If someone punches in an individual Sword in the search, they will not be too astonished by what they find. I hope I've adequately addressed the concerns in this VfD. Akerkhof 04:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The merged page looks like a really good solution, nice work--nixie 04:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, quite. Nice job! --fvw* 04:48, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
      • I think one article covering all twelve swords is a much better solution than twelve articles. Thanks for your work! Sorry to be a pain, but even better would be for the Twelve Swords of Power just to be merged into the Books of the Swords article, which is still a very short article, and anyway has a short section on the Twelve Swords of Power already, which could be expanded instead of linking to a separate article on the swords Why did you think the swords needed to be in a separate article? --BM 16:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Mainly because I intend to flesh out the universe and major characters on the main page, and an enormous Sword article in the middle of it might get to be a bit of the mess. There are about five, maybe six characters that need a paragraph or two, and four or five unique concepts to the Swords universe that require the same treatment. There's also a quibble I have with placement and useage of multiple spoiler tags that can be avoided entirely, I think, by keeping the two articles seperate. However, if it works out that the completed Books of the Swords article is still a bit light, and the swords article can fit neatly inside it without being distracting and confusing, I'll merge it. Deal? Akerkhof 22:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • If you had already done all this, there probably wouldn't be much argument now. You could just point to the fact that the main article was already over 32KB, and you needed to split out something, and decided to make it the sword detail. Some people might still say this topic doesn't merit so much detail and more than one article, but you'd have more of a point. Why not work on the main article some, including the sword material, until it gets near 32KB, *then* split out the sword stuff? A lot of people start with grand plans for a series fully-fleshed out articles, create an elaborate framework of multiple articles, most of which are initially stubs. Then they lose interest or don't have time to complete their plan, and we end up with all these related stubs on something that would have made more sense as a single article or at most a couple of articles. Someone coming along later wanting to work on the same topic is more or less stuck with the incomplete editorial plan of the person who started all the stubs, because it is a lot of work to get articles and redirects deleted -- and this might be discouraging enough that they don't bother cleaning things up or expanding the articles. And Wikipedia gets stuck with some more stuff that is a bit embarassing and which has to wait a long time to get cleaned up. --BM 17:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • By the way, redirecting to a section could be made to work easily if the server handled the Redirect pages by sending the HTTP Redirection Status Code (301) to the browser using the URL for the section. This would also be good in that bookmarks, links on search engines, etc, would end up being to the canonical URL/Article Title, rather than to redirect pages. But this isn't how things are currently done, and doing it this way would have the disadvantage of losing the "Redirected from" link that is currently displayed in a small font in the header of the pages after following a redirect. --BM 16:50, 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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bjorn Grinde

vanity page --JPotter 05:33, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfy - It's got a user attached; however, the user seems to be self-promoting on the wikipedia. humblefool® 05:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is at least a claim to notability, he has published a mainstream book. The self promo is worrying, but I'm not sure if that merits deletion. No vote yet. --fvw* 06:38, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Self promotion. But using his real name Bjørn Grinde I see he has published 2 books and 80 scientific articles that are kosher enough. And his position at Folkehelseinstituttet is also real enough. So keep. -- Egil 12:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to his User page and delete. If he's notable, let somebody else write it. RickK 01:12, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, he is notable enough, published works. Megan1967 03:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Autobiographies are frowned upon. RickK 05:08, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes the professor test, as far as I can understand, and now that Egil has removed the adjective "famous" describing his book, it is also NPOV. Userfy if not kept. / up+land 16:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Individual meets and exceeds the bar of notability. GRider\talk 19:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not fond of vanity, but his book seems to be mildly notable, so keep. RadicalSubversiv E 08:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Viriditas | Talk 19:49, 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 03:37, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chonk

Not notable. --fvw* 06:20, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable, likely self-promotion. jni 08:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotion/spam. --Gene s 11:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Chonk needs to be deleted--ZayZayEM 14:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Maybe not a bad idea, assuming these edits to the Wikipedia and Ween articles are really by Chonk. But what's up for deletion here is just the article, not the artist. (;-> No change of vote. Andrewa 15:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --JimmyShelter 14:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another local wannabe who thinks they can prolong their free web presence here by deleting the VfD notice (twice now)... Andrewa 15:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible artist vanity. Megan1967 03:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article was NOT put up by Chonk himself, so it is not vanity/self promotion. i posted it as a diehard fan of his, inspired by his show last night. and i am not the only one. he is quite big in northern california, and has gotten a lot of recognition elsewhere. his current album sells very well online and locally. sorry about the vandalism.. yesterday was my first day on wikipedia, and I didn't really understand that i could actually do that to an entire entry. i take full responsibility for that.
    • Comment: Please sign your votes, user 64.170.192.142. If you wish to avoid deletion of this article, you'd better inprove it quickly, providing some evidence of this person's notability. Having CDs in one record shop and online doesn't impress me at all. Are there any audited figures on the number of sales? No change of vote. Andrewa 12:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't have access to that kind of information.
        • (Sigh) Please sign your posts, user 64.170.192.142. Well, how about some performance dates and places, with attendance figures, of Chonk's biggest sucesses to date? Probably the talk page is the place to put this information. Did you write the article just because you like the artist? Or were there other reasons too? If so, what are they? Andrewa 11:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • A vanity page does not necessarily have to be written by its subject, whether real or fictional. Megan1967 00:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Obsessed fan posts fall under vanity (if not a subclause needs to be wroted)--ZayZayEM 13:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should do a wikipedia search on the word "vanity," because it's obvious you don't know the definition. I posted a description of an artist I appreciate. I would hardly call that obsessed.
        • Comment: Wikipedia:Vanity page. Also, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. — Gwalla | Talk 01:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Perhaps if Chonk's birth name might be added I might change to an Abstain. Start-up artists are wary Wikipedia material because they quite often fail before they become encyclopedic.--ZayZayEM 06:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • mk, i added his real name.
  • Delete, nn, vanity. Edeans 06:50, 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.

Blanked and protected at Jimbo's request. To see this debate, please use the page history. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SENT TO CP. dbenbenn | talk 00:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilkins

This page is committing a copywright violation. The text was copied word for word from here. Besides, there is already a bio on the person as Wilkins Zambrana. Tony the Marine

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 03:38, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cooker John

Appears to be a vanity page. And I don't think that there is potential for the page to become encyclopedic. Dismas 07:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. jni 09:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Kevin Rector 19:18, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:04, 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 summary 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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish ethnocentrism

This discussion has become extremely long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism

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 00:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anna's Swedish Thins

Not notable, most Google hits are stores selling them, Google groups yields fewer than 20 hits for "anna's thins". Grayscale 08:21, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable. Swedish brands of cookies isn't really the kind of thing people discuss in English on Usenet. / up land 09:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I should add that I modified the article somewhat from the version which Grayscale put on VfD. / up land 11:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Annas Pepparkakor is a famous brand of gingerbread. -- Jniemenmaa 09:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable, has been expanded. Samaritan 12:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 12:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another obvious keep. GRider\talk 19:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I love these cookies. Bungopolis 03:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. BTW why is Google Groups such a great indicator on biscuita. I wouldn't have thought that biscuits would be a popular topic of discussion.Capitalistroadster 07:32, 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 03:41, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Allan

Non-notable. jni 08:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Concur, delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Egil 12:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; entire text "Born Nov. 27th, 1983 in Fountain Valley, CA. Graduated from Palos Verdes Peninsula High School with honors in 2002. Derek Allan is currently working as the tour manager for the group One Block Radius." Samaritan 12:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Non notable. Inter 13:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tour manager for a minor band? Not impressive enough for an encyclopedia. Average Earthman 14:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:09, 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, by a vote of 6 to 2. Postdlf 22:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synapse Festival

Non-notable college fest. Delete. utcursch 10:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. Maybe if it lasts a few more years.--ZayZayEM 14:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • making this weak as I agree with the subjectivity of "not notable". This has the propensity to be notable, and it would be sort of silly to delete the article and have to rewrite the article in a few years time. Perhaps the article should not be deleted until the festival kaputs (if.. I mean if).
      • Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't speculate on potential future notability. If it does become notable, it would not be a major burden to recreate this, and the existing stub wouldn't contribute much. — Gwalla | Talk 01:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Agreed. But IMHO the point of contention here is the definition of 'notability'. How do you determine whether Synapse is notable or not? - varunrebel 08:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:21, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's nothing like international-level competitions, organized by ACM or IIT. It's just another of those annual college fests. utcursch 04:09, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 03:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 'not notable' is very subjective. DA-IICT is a famous university in India and was ranked 3rd in the ranking of private universities (forgot where I saw the survey). Synapse is also becoming very popular among Indian students. It is true that it is not as popular as some of the other festival's such as IIT's, IIM's etc. BTW I was a student of DA-IICT... Varunrebel 07:39, 1 Feb 2005 (IST)
    • As a student of DA-IICT and author of Synapse, you believe that it should be kept. But think about the precedent that it will set. There are thousands of college festivals in the world. My college has also got two - one cultural and another technical. Synapse isn't notable enough to have an article of its own. If it is kept, Wikipedia will be flooded with such entries. You can write something about Synapse in the DA-IICT article. If it becomes really notable in future, it may deserve a separate article. But as of now, I think it's just another of the annual college festivals that every college has. utcursch 09:02, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • varunrebel says
        1. "As a student of DA-IICT and author of Synapse..." - Please do NOT try to bias the dscussion by implying that I am saying what I am saying bcoz I am a DA-IICTian. I mentioned that I was an ex-student of DA-IICT just to fair and ethical. I didnt mention it bcoz I wanted to advocate on behalf of Synapse. My belief that is should be kept is NOT bcoz I am a DA-IICTian. However I do admit that my special interest in preventing its deletion _is_ bcoz I am DA-IICTian
        2. The 2nd point you have raised is "what if the festivals of all colleges were to be added to Wikipedia? Will Wikipedia not become floded?" My counter-question is "So what?" I dont think the inclusion of college festivals in Wikipedia is harmful as long as it is made very clear that it is a college festival and the reader does not confuse it with anything else.
        3. And my final question/issue that I have voiced before this also - "How do you define notable?" I claim that Synapse is well known enough to be included. You say that it is not. How do we objecively decide who is right? (if there is such a thing as 'right') - varunrebel 10:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi Varun, firstly, I am not trying to bias the discussion. Secondly, you should understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository. Everything can't find a place here. A link to the official synapse website on Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology page is more than sufficient. However, creating a separate article for it is not OK. Answering your third argument, since you've create the page, it's your duty to explain why the fest is notable, not mine. I (like other users who've voted delete) find it non-notabble, because it has not reached the level of significance required to find a mention in Wikipedia. It's not famous in India, and certainly not of international level. utcursch 04:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not look notable to me. Indrian 05:49, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. I was only able to find one relevant non-WP-mirror hit on Google. —Korath (Talk) 17:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to 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 03:43, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bright Hill Crematorium

No indication of notability. Gazpacho 11:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • 16 results on Google. I afraid it has to be delete I guess. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As public institutions all crematoria are inherently notable. Keep. --Centauri 12:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an article, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete'. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a list of everything in the world. -R. fiend 16:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now to wait for the articles on individual gravestones. Xezbeth 18:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Less than 20 Google hits. Megan1967 05:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually it has over 300 Google hits [5], and is a major tourist attraction, being part of the largest temple complex in Singapore [6], which itself has nearly 25,000 Google hits [7]. Suggest the article be renamed as Bright Hill Temple and expanded accordingly.--Centauri 03:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 18:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article is pending deletion due to block-compress error. Joyous 17:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diego Sanchez

Vanity or not notable. See Talk:Diego Sanchez. --Gene s 11:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. A comparably notable figure in Internet, IT, telecom and intellectual property law in certain other countries would probably pass. (Probably, because this is hard to google-test. Also note that he doesn't work in just Ecuador according to the article. Why not delete and transwiki? Leading figures in these specialties of law around the world are of interest to Anglophones. But while keeping, and especially if deletion from en wins the day, do transwiki the original Spanish form to es and let the community there judge its notability to them.) Samaritan 12:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well... no vote on keep or delete. But definitely send to es. Samaritan 06:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Writing a book and being in-house lawyer at Diners Club of Ecuador is no big deal. No evidence of notability and almost certainly a vanity page. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:12, 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 03:46, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TheBBS

A history of how Benjammin H. Graham developed his BBS. Uncle G 12:23, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

See also:

thebbs benjammin yields no hits whatsoever, thebbs graham and thebbs benjamin nothing apparently related on the web or Usenet. Delete. Samaritan 12:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Niteowlneils 18:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • TheDelete. GRider\talk 19:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this jibberish. Edeans 07:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Show this article TheDoor. Carrp | Talk 18:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zantonavitch

It appears non-notable (vanity?), about a writer/journalist whose name comes up 366 times in Google - most of which are just due to posts on forums or blogs by him. Name of article does not seem correct, should at least be Andre Zantonavitch. -- AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete I followed your example -- googled, looked at some of what came up. He's just one more opinionated blogger and ideological warrior on various bulletin boards. Sorry, but they're a dime a dozen.--Christofurio 15:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly...what is this thing some people about vanity pages titled with only their surname? Is it a corollary to the one about lowercasing the surname? Oy. Delete. Bearcat 05:46, 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 03:48, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K\'Vort class starship

I'll abstain, because I'm not sure what Wikipedia's guidelines are on this one. But: is an entry for a fictional Klingon vessel encyclopedic, or is it excessive, non-notable Trek-cruft? (Note: there is a typo in the article's title). --Plek 13:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I dare to face the wrath of a thousand trekkies. (AM- I think Wikipedia policy will allow such an article)--ZayZayEM 14:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's already a complete, wikified article at the correctly-spelled K'Vort class starship. This new article appears to be a copy-paste from a mirror of the original; the opening material seems identical. --TenOfAllTrades 15:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a duplicate. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on Trek ships and ship classes, so I don't object to the subject matter. (However, is the K'Vort class information canon? I know there's a few episode references to maybe it is. I'm not up on my Klingon ships.) 23skidoo 15:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh, we definitely want our articles about Klingon starships to have titles that are correctly spelled. And they had better be canonical starships; we wouldn't want an article about a Klingon starship class that someone had, you know, just made up or something. --BM 20:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems like it should even be a speedy delete; it's a simple copy and paste from the real K'Vort class starship article but all the text formatting has been lost. I think articles on Star Trek ships are great, and the K'Vort is canon, but this is just a duplicate of the real article. TomTheHand 00:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, it's spelled wrong. Even the Trekkies can't whinge about this one. Average Earthman 00:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to K'Vort class starship. It appears to be a title spelling mistake. Megan1967 03:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article as duplicate. As for the spirit of this nomination, I get the impression that Plek would nominate the real version of this article for deletion as well. I'm not entirely sure if it's all encyclopedic, but I would give the entire series of science-fictional ship classes (see Starship class) a weak keep. --Plutor 17:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't necessarily mean to ditch the entire series or genre, but I think it's a valid question to ask whether a fictional universe needs to be described in so much detail on Wikipedia. There isn't anything yet in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents that provides an answer, so maybe it's time for a precedent. I do wonder if we're not wasting time and energy on a duplicate effort, when there's an excellent and IMO superior Trek Wiki available at Memory Alpha. For instance, compare "our" Sovereign class starship to "theirs", or "our" Intrepid class starship to "theirs". Maybe some creative use of inter-Wiki linking will lead to a better end result than trying to come up with all the material independently. Just my 0.02. --Plek 20:15, 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 03:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brad_bradson

A large vanity article about the main character of a very minor game. Seems to be written by the maker of the game. JimmyShelter 14:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --fvw* 21:36, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Smells like self-promotion/spam. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Cyrius. --Neigel von Teighen 20:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:50, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Lesley Pass

Notable? No google hits. Thue | talk 14:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah yes, first there's the painful nowning process. Delete. --fvw* 21:37, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete. Celebrated by whom, exactly? I can't find any evidence of his existence. Average Earthman 00:48, 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 REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 00:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preston Origins

This article can be better accommodated in the History section on the otherwise sparse Preston article. I have moved the text there already, with wikification. It fits quite comfortably. The JPS 15:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • VFD is not the final step in an article merger. Uncle G 15:39, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Redirect per license requirements to maintain author attribution. humblefool® 00:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll go with that The JPS 01:03, 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 ambiguous. I count 8 clear delete votes and 5 clear keep votes. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to "keep" for now. Rossami (talk) 02:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talossan language

Vanity conlang made up for the vanity micronation Talossa. See also the vanity bio R. Ben Madison. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • To have constructed a dictionary of 28000 words by speaking the language (assuming that this is verifiable) is a notable achievement for "a few dozen" people. And yes, a quick Google Groups search shows that this does appear to have the "interest" (although perhaps not the "respect") of those who study constructed languages. Keep and send to Cleanup. Uncle G 16:14, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete. Constructed languages are like model airplanes. The hobbies of constructing languages or model airplanes are notable. The actual languages or airplane models usually are not. --BM 18:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The vast majority of conlangs are non-notable (as are, indeed the vast majority of micronations). Talossa is not a non-notable micronation; Talossan; having an extensive lexicon and grammar and being reasonably well-attested throughout the web, is notable as an example of its sort of conlang. Keep as exception to general principle. Lacrimosus 19:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't agree. For it to be notable, it would have had to break out of the conlang "community" to the wider world. Saying it is notable because conlangers talk about it on the Web is like saying that fictional planets in the Star Wars universe are notable because Star Wars fans talk about them on the Internet. Oh wait, never mind. --BM 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The simile would only be appropriate if real people actually lived on those fictional planets. People do, reportedly (see my previous caveat), actually speak this language. And, reportedly, the language grows by actual use. Whether it has as many speakers, or is used as often, as Klingon is certainly a factor. But the Google Groups search indicates that this is more than simply R. Ben Madison alone proselytising something that he made up. My biggest concern is not with the language, but with the "micronation" aspect. This seems more like a long running role-playing game than a nation, which the players have fleshed out with a language with its own detailed fictional history. That's certainly a reason to be highly dubious of an R. Ben Madison article. However, whilst the position of king in an RPG isn't real the language invented for players of that game to use when playing is real, and appears to have garnered some attention (albeit, as I mentioned before, not as positive as this article makes out) from outsiders. So for me, the notability of this language rests upon whether it has any outstanding features (which, given that other constructed languages also grow by use, is not certain) and how widespread its use, and the study of it, are (which, I point out again, I'd like to see verified). Uncle G 13:33, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
        • People don't really speak these languages as a primary language, or even for any real purpose other than their own amusement. I read an article about a Klingon "speaker" who tried to make his infant son bi-lingual in Klingon and English. He spoke exclusively Klingon to the boy and his wife spoke exclusively English. This should have worked: lots of kids are bilingual, or even trilingual because of strategies like this adopted by their parents. But the experiment failed: the kid refused to speak Klingon after a while. One reason that was proposed for this was that Klingon didn't have a lot of useful words for households with infants like "diaper" and "sippy-cup". Or maybe it would have worked if it had been his mother speaking the Klingon. We don't call them mother tongues for nothing, but mothers are probably not nutty enough to try it. The reason might be more profound: there just might be something about real human languages that people don't understand well enough yet to create a language from scratch that someone can actually acquire as a child. A conlang that someone taught to their child might be notable. This one is just a hobbyist plaything. --BM 18:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment: As a linguistics student, and one with an interest in conlangs, I would dispute this. There is nothing within the Klingon language's grammar that would prevent it being acquired as a native language. The reasons it its not have to do with sociolinguistic and pragmatic factors. As for outstanding features, in terms of conlangs, it has an exceptionally large lexicon, quite a lengthy history, and an unusually large speaker/enthusiast base. These are what motivates me to consider this as an exception to generally non-notable conlangs. The point about Quenya, Sindarin and Esperanto is taken, but I think a fair overview of conlanging, existing as it does largely on the Internet, is prevented if we restrict ourselves to published works (as we wouldn't do, with say, the furry community). Lacrimosus 20:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I'm a conlanger by myself, this hasn't reached any status like Esperanto, Quenya, Sindarin or Klingon. If I encounter an article about my own conlangs, I would also nominate it to VfD, because of non-notability --Neigel von Teighen 20:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 21:40, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Anything that gets 4500 Google hits says keep to me. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we base Wikipedia articles purely on how often it is mentioned on the internat, the random page link will need to be certificate 18. Average Earthman 00:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Precedent suggests that this number of Google hits is sufficient to establish notability. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Precedent is a guide, not a god. Google is not an absolute, and can be deliberately or inadvertantly distorted. for example, Google currently says the second most important use of the phrase 'Average Earthman' is by me. Average Earthman 12:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, with only 130 Google hits you're not doing too well. I would vote to delete you. ;-) 20:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • If you find an article entitled Average Earthman outside of user space, you're welcome to nominate it... Average Earthman 10:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable conlang. We don't even have an article on the crummy micronation, just a two-line entry in Micronation. RickK 00:54, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: unfortunately, an item's coverage on Wikipedia is a poor indication of its relative importance ;) Lacrimosus 20:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Why, it seems a bit crufty to me. A bit crufty. Delete. Everyking 04:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia shoud be in the business of including information, even rather obsure information.Zantastik 07:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has an active speaking community, which puts it in pretty rarefied company for conlangs. It's also a pretty good example of an a posteriori naturalistic conlang. — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:51, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] R. Ben Madison

Vanity page for the self-appointed king of a micronation. We'll need to clean up some promo links when this is gone. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • With the unverified information (such as the "maybe" birthdate) removed, this is a sub-stub, all of the information in which is already present on Talossan language and micronation. Delete and remove redlinks. Uncle G 16:14, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete, all relevant information appears in Talossa, and besides, the man himself is a good deal less notable than the success of his micronation. Lacrimosus 19:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 21:41, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • I have merged the relevant info into micronation, so this article can be deleted. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Talossa. — Gwalla | Talk 01:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Er ... Talossa is itself a redirect. You'll end up redirecting from R. Ben Madison to micronation. Is that what you actually want? Uncle G 03:13, 2005 Feb 5 (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 03:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vince flores

Vanity. Not notable. jni 17:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Xezbeth 18:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ASAP. -- Hadal 20:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wacky isn't significant, unless you can persuade a major TV network to pay you large amounts of money to do it on prime time TV. Which he hasn't. Average Earthman 00:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:26, 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 03:54, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Gordon

Vanity. Poor short story. I already speedied an earlier version of this, but this one has too many grammatically correct sentences to be a CSD. jni 17:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems like a playground for some kids. JimmyShelter 17:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.. Xezbeth 21:13, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 03:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though he's sitting next to me. Hi! :) Luigi30 17:14, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 00:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Young (academic)

Article does not establish notability. jni 17:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] User:Anthony DiPierro/George Elliot Clarke

Seems to duplicate article on George Elliot Clarke.--BrentS 18:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is most likely just a draft. Users keep this sort of material within their subpages routinely. Lacrimosus 19:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Lacrimosus said. —Mar·ka·ci 20:14, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is probably just preparing an edit in his user space, which is a perfectly reasonable way to use it. A lot of people do this. --BM 20:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in his User space. RickK 00:52, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Userspace. - RedWordSmith 01:30, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. People can do what they like in their user space within very, very broad limits. Anything that looks even vaguely related to a legitimate Wikipedian purpose is fine. Basically the only things that are out of bounds are using megabytes and megabytes of space, or something clearly non-Wikipedia related like maintaining your church's newsletter archives there, or something grotesquely antisocial. This page should not have been nominated for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If he's preparing an edit, he needs to know that an article already exists at George Elliott Clarke (two t's). But, yeah, keep user subpages; there's no real reason to delete them. Bearcat 03:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Comment: What gives? Can we speedy delist vfd's targetting User subpages? This seems to be a waste of time. —RaD Man (talk) 10:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a copy of this, which was previously deleted, blanked, and protected. I copied over the text for the duration of the undeletion discussion. Now that it has been undeleted, it is no longer necessary, and I have marked it as a speedy. anthony 警告 13:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And I have deleted it. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:31, 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 17:08, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IOKIYAR

A dictionary definiton, with no indications as to the actual popularity of the abbreviation, or citations to demonstrate that this hasn't simply been made up. Uncle G 18:20, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

  • nn slangdef, delete. --fvw* 21:48, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • It's OK if you're deleted. humblefool® 00:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've certainly seen it frequently enough on the liberal blogs, and I can imagine someone actually looking it up (like Reality-based community) if they're encountering it for the first time. Ironically enough, the article demonstrates its notability and violation of Wiki rules simultaneouesly: it's a copyvio, a direct lift from a Paul Krugman column of a few weeks ago. Keep, if cleaned-up to encyclopedia standards. --Calton 00:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, rewrote completely, though I still don't think it's up to snuff. Needs history, better citations, and (probably) an NPOV check (I don't trust myself on this) to be worthy of article status. --Calton 02:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:29, 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 16:54, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Off Chance

This page appears to reference a Web resource that is no longer available. This may indicate a vanity page. Either way, I can find no useful information regarding the author of the web comic that the article refers to. sugarfish 18:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • The web comic and its creator appear to be real enough; they can be found with a GWS. Doesn't seem particularly notable, though. Delete. Edeans 07:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This comic has apparently been around for two years and still doesn't get enough traffic to qualify under the webcomic guidelines. Current article contains almost no information, nothing you wouldn't find out just by looking at the site's main page. — Gwalla | Talk 02:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Deserter

Independent film that hasn't been released (apparently). Eric Bruno Borgman (who is also up for vfd) is the writer, director, and main actor. It's un-notable, vanity, and probably advertising.

It's considered bad form to nominate something for deletion and then vote to delete it as well. It's in the guidelines. Not that anyone cares. Dwain 00:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough, only 5 votes and 1 comment on IMDb. sugarfish 20:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's amazing how long these articles have lasted. Xezbeth 20:41, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dwain 00:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dwain hasn't given any explanation, but I can't imagine one which would justify keeping any proposed, independent, unreleased movie. RickK 00:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unreleased movie with no sign of a wide distribution set up. If it wins a prize at a major film festival, then it can have an article. If it gets a wide cinematic release, then it can have an article. Until then, stop trying to use Wikipedia to plug it. Average Earthman 00:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete until it gets distributed and released anyway. I strongly suspect that there is only one printing of this film, and it isn't being shown anywhere. -R. fiend 02:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this promo. Edeans 08:14, 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 both articles. Joyous 16:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Next Generation of Kinksters and GMSMA

Not an article. It's a huge quote. --Neigel von Teighen 19:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • CommentCertainly the article as it stands now is not up to standards - but the article is referring to a real organization. I'm not certain one way or the other on whether it is notable enough for an article. Johntex 20:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • We'll burn that bridge when we get to it, this isn't a useful basis for that article even if it should exist. Delete. --fvw* 21:50, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Let's include GMSMA in this, too. Delete both. RickK 21:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. —Korath (Talk) 09:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. -- JimmyShelter 09:23, 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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 6 merge, 7 keep, 0 delete.

[edit] All Ball

Minor trivia, probably will never get expanded. I suggest it gets merged into Koko. JoaoRicardo 20:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • No need to VfD for merging, be bold, move the content into Koko and turn into a redirect. For what it's worth, merging sounds like a good idea to me. --fvw* 21:52, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs work, but I remember both the cat and the news when it was killed. Trivial? Maybe, but not enough to delete. :)
Koko's Kitten - book
Google results "All Ball" cat - 4090 "All Ball" zoo - 925 --Bookandcoffee 22:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh! I remember reading about All Ball in National Geographic, and seeing him on television, when I was growing up. I hadn't heard of his sad demise. :( I'm going to add him to Category:Historical cats. Keep! Samaritan 00:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic. RickK 00:49, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Koko. Joyous 02:09, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable feline, expand article. Megan1967 03:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Koko until either article is long enough to merit a split. —Korath (Talk) 10:07, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparently Koko's had a few more pets to put here - All Ball would be the most significant, as the first. Put that in, along with photos (I remember All Ball made the National Geographic frontpage) and any sign conversations Koko has had with All Ball and I think we have a small but sufficient article. Gaurav 18:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect until Koko is too large. Rossami (talk) 23:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like User:Gaurav's proposal. — Gwalla | Talk 02:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment I've made a tentative start to expanding the article. Btw All Ball was male not female, as stated in the original article. Megan1967 03:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Strengthen my keep with Megan1967's expansions (and fact-checking). Samaritan 03:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but cross-reference from Koko. I'll clean up the language a little. All Ball has an identity of his own and played an important part in the debate over whether animals can feel and express emotions. Not only that, but lots of schoolchildren will try to find All Ball when they write their reports. Delete? Give me a break. User:Cbdorsett
  • Merge with Koko. Bacchiad 17:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:52, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott McKeown

  • It is with a heavy heart that I nominate this for VfD, for the loss of anyone is sad and a loss in tragic circumstances like the Glendale train crash even more so. However Wikipedia is not a memorial and the article doesn't (for me) establish encycolopedic notablity.Delete Thryduulf 20:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 21:53, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. Average Earthman 00:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but he does sound famous doesn't he? sugarfish 01:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Force10 06:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • R.I.P. Scott McKeown and the 10 other victims of last week's Glendale tragedy. Sadly, until we create WikiMemorial or WikiObituaries or whatever we call it, delete this one. :( Szyslak 07:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I didn't know Scott and his early death is a tragedy - but this simply isn't a memorial site and he wasn't that memorable. Brookie 17:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's really a shame to delete this; we really need to establish a WikiMemorial or WikiObituaries. We should warn the author so he/she doesn't lose the text if we do delete this. I don't like doing this, but it's just not encyclopedic.Zantastik 07:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - we have terrible double standards here. Why do we have an article on Doris Angleton, a murdered socialite? is a socialite encyclopedic, but a telecommunications professional not? Why do we have an article on Jessica Bergsten and Cassie Bernall instead of only an article on their murderers? Why is Carlie Brucia's murder encyclopedic, but McKeown's death not? Why is Kris Donald's murder anymore note-worthy than McKeown's death? Are the following deaths significant enough to deem a devoted article? Kristen French, Kimberly Anne Guglielmo, Tammy Homolka, Brian Howe (murder victim), Christine Jessop, Holly Jones, Leslie Mahaffy, Gail Miller, Betty Osborne, Alison Parrott, Reena Virk, Lili Wang and Cecilia Zhang. If you are going to delete Scott McKeown, you should consider deleting many of the articles i've metioned. Kingturtle 02:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The quick answer would be that we have those articles because they haven't been nominated for VfD. Average Earthman 10:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've gone through and had a quick read of all the articles you link to. I'll put a brief summary of my thoughts on each one below. Before I do that, I should say that I think that beign murdered is slilghtly more notable than being killed in a train crash, but not sufficent to merit inclusion in WP on its own, however if the murder is notable this can make the victim notable (for being notably murdered). Whether this is a view shared by others I have no idea. If others want to use my comments in any future VfDs on these articles you may do.
      • Doris Angleton (created 28 August 2003, marked for cleanup since 8 December 2004): Doesn't seem notable to me, although if it is cleaned up notability may be established. 90% of the edits have been by User:WhisperToMe, who created the article.
      • Carlie Brucia (created 4 February 2004). This apparently generated a lot of US-nationwide media attention at the time, which would establish enough notability for me. The talk page shows it was subjected to a VfD from 8 February 2004, the consensus of which was to keep that article.
      • Jessica Bergsten was murdered by "famous skateboarder Mark Rogowski". Because of his fame (his article firmly establishes that) and the fact she was prominently featured in a DVD about his rise and fall (see her article) I feel she merits an article.
      • Cassie Bernall was a Columbine High School massacre victim. Of the 15 victims of that tragedy, 6 have articles. Of those 6, 4 are subject to current VfDs (all started by User:UncleG on 1st February, the current consensus seems to be to make them redircts to the massacre article. The only other one who is not subject to a VfD is Rachel Scott, this seems to be because her parents have written very extensively about her and the massacre. Were Cassie's article to be subject to a VfD I wouldn't vote.
      • Kris Donald (a white person murdered by "British Asians of Pakistani Muslim origin"): reading the article this seems to have been quite an issue, with the case being cited by far right wing groups and contrasted to the Stephen Lawrence murder. I'd vote to keep this article.
      • Kristen French: Doesn't strike me as notable at all. I will be marking this for VfD when I have finished commenting here.
      • Kimberly Anne Guglielmo: "The murder of Kimberly Anne Guglielmo which at first received sensational print and elecronic media coverage in New York and Florida, was eventually dropped as attention of the public was diverted to the trial of O. J. Simpson and the arrest of Timothy McVeigh". Reading this extensive article, it seems notable enough to me.
      • Tammy Homolka: Murdered by her sister, serial killer Karla Homolka. Whether she is notable or not is a pretty difficult decision. There is not much more in this article than what is said about her in her sister's article. I'm not nominating this for VfD myself, but if someone else did I'd probably vote weak delete.
      • Brian Howe (murder victim) was killed by the extremely notorious Mary Bell. The article says absolutely nothing however (when you remove the cleanup and stub notices your left with his date of death and date of burrial. I will also be nominating this for deletion.
      • Christine Jessop This doesn't establish notability at all - I'll mark it for VfD.
      • Holly Jones. This is more difficult to decide on, if the murder happened in Britain it would almost certainly have caused a lot of media attention, especially as the tabloids would haev a field day with the comments about Child pornography. Can anyone from the Toronto area (or Canada in general) say whether this happened or not? I wont mark this for VfD, but I have put a note on the talk page.
      • Leslie Mahaffy. Again this doesn't seem notable to me, another VfD I think.
      • Gail Miller. Notable enough (but only just) imho.
      • Betty Osborne. This seems to be locally important, whehter this is enough I will let others decide.
      • Reena Virk. Notable enough for me.
      • Lili Wang. Just notable enough imho, but only just.
      • Cecilia Zhang her dissapearance made "Canadian and international headlines.". This statement in itself make the article worth keeping imho.
Remeber that all of the above are just my personal opinions, if you find any other articles on WP that you genuinely feel don't belong you are free to propose them for deletion. Thryduulf 12:10, 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 16:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremie roche

  • Vanity. -- Curps 20:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity. Delete or userfy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, was speedied by Silsor but recreated by Antaeus on VfD-tagging. No user page to move to. --fvw* 21:55, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:33, 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 11 delete, 8 keep, 3 merge, 2 keep or merge.

[edit] Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act

This page describes (in great detail) a bill introduced to the U.S. Congress by Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul that would have repealed sections of the Patriot Act. Not only did the bill die without action last year, there are literally thousands and thousands of bills that get introduced during a session of Congress, about 7 percent of which actually get enacted. I'm sure the bill was a fine one, but a) it went nowhere, and b) it never had a chance to go anywhere, which to me makes this not notable and thus not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, despite the controversial nature of the Patriot Act. (There have been fistfuls of bills introduced trying to do various things to the Patriot Act, and this one is not particularly special in that group. I am a Capitol Hill reporter, so unfortunately I am all too familiar with this topic.) Katefan0 20:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, of course. Passes the Pokemon Comparative Importance Test (PCIT). Rhobite 21:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, so we should include the thousands of Pokemon creatures that don't get past the drawing board at Nintendo? Just checking. --Calton 01:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm writing that one down and saving it for later. GRider\talk 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Apples to oranges. It was a joke. Rhobite 02:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Right, but you still voted "keep". Who's doing the apples/oranges thing here? --Calton 00:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Katefan0. If not already there, merge a brief summary of this bill into the USA PATRIOT Act and then Delete. older≠wiser 21:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, perhaps a single line the PA article, but I'll leave that judgement issue to whoever wants to do it. --fvw* 21:56, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete. humblefool® 00:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until it passes. RickK 00:48, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just a quick explanatory note: It will never pass. It in fact has now ceased to exist. It was introduced in the 108th Congress. It is now the 109th Congress. When Congress enters into a new congressional session, all bills are considered dead. They can be re-introduced (with new numbers), but for all intents and purposes they no longer exist. So far this has not been re-introduced, and probably won't be. Katefan0 17:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • That was my {apparently too-subtle} point.  :) RickK 22:43, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Add a sentence or two to the Patriot act article. --Calton 01:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • At least merge some of this to USA PATRIOT Act or to the article on Kucinich, but I think it is more significant than much of the above suggests. This was more a protest action and a critique of the USA PATRIOT Act than it was ever really intended to pass into law. Think of it as a political demonstration by two House members whose politics are, in most respects, quite different from one another: Kucinich on the left edge of the Democratic Party and Ron Paul a right-libertarian Republican. I'm not sure if the detailing of its provisions is the right article to have, but I'd vote keep for rewriting this as a window into the strange bedfellows that have arisen from civil libertarian opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:58, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough yet. Megan1967 03:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep on the grounds of the PCIT. Everyking 04:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge; Agree with Jmabel. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Agreed w/ Jmabel. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would possibly be notable if it had been passed or was a significant topic of discussion in Washington. Neither appears to be the case. Capitalistroadster 07:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to 2-3 sentences in USA PATRIOT Act and one sentence each in Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Agree with Jmabel's analysis, but unless he's prepared to do such an encyclopedic edit, we should leave it to short notes in those articles, since I also agree with Katefan0 that there were many such bills introduced. This was more notable than most, but was still an instrument of debate rather than a bill that was passed. Barno 14:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Jmabel. GRider\talk 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It was never an Act. It was just a Bill. Rossami (talk) 00:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's just a Bill, yes it's only a Bill, and it was sitting there on Capitol Hill... --Calton 00:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. Well-known in progressive circles. If this page is deleted, I will push for its restoration. It was a notable bill. --Sesel 00:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Do what you have to do, but don't re-create it unilaterally, bring it up at Votes for undeletion. RickK 08:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm aware that the undeletion process is proper policy. --Sesel 18:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is an important issue, and besides, Wikipedia should discuss all manner of proposed bills.Zantastik 07:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • So we should have an article on every bill ever submitted to every legislature? Or where do you draw the line? RickK 08:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Echo Rick's question. There is absolutely no good reason why we should have an encyclopedic entry for a bill that never went anywhere. Especially when we don't have entries for every bill that actually does become law. Katefan0 17:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Support Katefan0's analysis. --BM 16:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. BTW, that we don't yet have articles on one thing does not mean that we can't have article on another, Katefan0. James F. (talk) 12:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's true, but misses my point, which was about orders of importance. Katefan0 16:57, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Failed congressional legislation is historical trivia, but as "Wikipedia is not paper", if somone actually bothers to write an encyclopedic entry on such minutia, I can see no harm in leaving it. It could be of potential interest to someone . -- Infrogmation 20:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The legislation proposed by a congressman is even more important than where he went to high school. Ashibaka tlk 21:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Members of Congress introduce/sponsor legislation ALL THE TIME. I looked it up, and Kuchinich is listed as sponsor of 19 bills and Paul of 62. Listing all of them would be pointless, and since the one we're discussing sank without a trace, why give it special prominence?
  • Keep Opposition to the Patriot Act is notable. As a part of that opposition, at the federal legislative level, pushes its notability above the "literally thousands and thousands of bills that get introduced". Passage is not required for notability. Added notability comes from its sponsorship by a 2004 presidential candidate. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:08, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Opposition to the Patriot Act is no more notable than opposition to any other policy of the Bush administration: war in Iraq, defense policy, energy policy, Social Security privatization, tax cuts, education, you name it. Dozens of federal bills are introduced/sponsored every session by former presidential candidates: John Kerry, who actually polled above single digits, has 29 with his name on them from the 108th Congress.
    • The term for keeping this article is "POV", and talk about "notability" is mere hand-waving. The bill was introduced, sank without leaving any real ripples, and is now officially dead: any "notability" is among those committed to those opposing the USA PATRIOT Act, not the world at large. This bill, is, at best, a historical footnote not deserving of a full article -- certainly not in the eye-glazing detail this one has -- and the purpose of keeping it is for consciousness-raising (or, to be blunt, propaganda) purposes. --Calton 01:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree with you, Keith. The fact that this bill was introduced in opposition to the Patriot Act does not inherently make it notable. I also disagree that it gains added notability because it was introduced by Kucinich. He was a presidential candidate, but only barely -- like this bill, his candidacy was futile from the start. Does this also mean that failed Democratic contender Carol Moseley Braun's bills are also inherently more notable? (No.) Katefan0 20:58, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Even if "This bill, is, at best, a historical footnote..." then what is a comprehensive encyclopaedia like this for if it is not allowed to contain what could hardly be considered an excessively long piece on a historical footnote. Its existence cannot be propaganda unless you argue that an articles existence constitutes implied notability and hence validity. So then edit the page to accurately portray its actual significance, so people can decide for themselves. I believe we should err on the side of preservation not deletion, even if the notability is questionable -- Fuzz 02:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote is user's first edit. --fvw* 02:24, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
    • I am in not the author or supporter of the article, and have not previously voted. Im sure the above is done as a matter of course in case of attempts to rig votes etc., so Im just clearing that up - Fuzz 02:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bill doesn't exist, never had a chance to exist and was introduced with the knowledge that it would never have a chance. It had no significance beyond a publicity stunt. SWAdair | Talk 11:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boundy

A simple description of a mixed drink. Don't think this has any chance of becoming encyclopedic. Katefan0 21:04, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Doesn't establish notability. Delete. --fvw* 21:58, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't allow recipes, though there seems to be an excpetion for alcoholic drinks. Still, as this one isn't in my Mr. Boston book I'm deeming it not notable. And what's a "wkd orange"? A weekend orange? Anyway delete. -R. fiend 04:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable recipe. I know alcoholic drinks get special consideration, but they shouldn't. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, with extreme prejudice. A "wkd orange"?

  • Delete Non-notable. For the record, WKD[[8]] (pronounced wicked) is a brand of alcopops in the UK, whose names are based on their colours (Blue, Orange, etc). Still no place here though. Lawlore 18:37, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep with a cleanup tag. If the article is not substantially improved in a reasonable amount of time, it may be appropriate to renominate it for deletion. Rossami (talk) 02:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Library (The Twilight Zone)

I can't see how this is an encyclopedic article. It reads like the back cover of a book. Perhaps it is. --Smoddy | ειπετε 21:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, should probably go into a twilight zone episode list somewhere, though I have a strong gut feeling that this is a copyvio from meatspace. --fvw* 21:59, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup and a rewrite is needed. Star Trek and Doctor Who episodes rate their own articles, so Twilight Zone stories are just as worthy (especially on the basis that many of them are standalone classics). However this article needs a lot of work to bring it in line with other episode articles (for example I can't tell from this which of the three TZ series The Library comes from). 23skidoo 23:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You could if you were to look at List of The Twilight Zone episodes. ☺ Someone has recoloured a redlink. Picking a handful of bluelinks at random from that page, I find that some, like Her Pilgrim Soul (The Twilight Zone), are reasonably decent, whilst others, like Button, Button (The Twilight Zone) and To See the Invisible Man (The Twilight Zone), are just as lacking as this one. However, the former indicates that an article like this can be done well, without descending into describing fiction as if it were reality, as is such a problem with many science-fiction articles. Either Weak Keep and send to Cleanup along with all of the other episode articles that are nothing but plot synopses or the teasers from listing magazines; or Delete to redlink to start again, since it seems that in this case we will only be losing a teaser, which has copyright connotations anyway. Uncle G 23:26, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't like the idea that television episodes should have their own article. Carrp | Talk 18:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 00:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bancroft Street in Pepperell, Massachusetts

Doesn't establish notability. Or anything else, for that matter. --fvw* 21:27, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

  • Right on. Not only is the title completely outside conventions, it was written better than the "article!" Delete for certain; speedy delete if possible. - Lucky 6.9 22:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: We may be dealing with a troll, if not an out-and-out clueless newbie. I don't mean to bite said newbie, but take a moment to check out the contribs from this person. Hopefully, s/he will settle down a bit. - Lucky 6.9 23:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I just marked it for speedy, as the article basically rephrases the title. If no admin has the balls to speedy it, then I fully support a regular deletion of course. -R. fiend 04:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:24, 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 00:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The boner essay

Although this is nothing like the sniggeringly juvenile article I expected from its name, it's still not the slightest bit notable. Googling for "Michael Scherger", the central figure in the incident, turns up a hundred or so hits, most of which are for other people with the same name, plus a couple of one-time references on "weird news story" sites and "weird sex story" sites, all from 2002 and all of which quote the same newspaper story. DS 21:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The vfd tag was added by someone else but this part wasn't finished. I'm neutral about this article. --LeeHunter 21:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's an interesting/weird story, but I don't think it deserves an article here. —Mar·ka·ci 22:24, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a pity the kid was punished so harshly because his story referenced the human penis, but I don't these sorts of local small-scale controversies are notable enough for an encyclopedia. — Ливай | ☺ 02:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic, possible original research. Megan1967 03:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At least the guy who was suspended for wearing a Pepsi shirt on his school's "Coke Day" got some national attention. (Do we have an article on that? I have no idea where to look.) -R. fiend 04:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trivia. ping 07:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As much as I hate to be a dick, I must vote delete. GRider\talk 22:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral about this one. I think this article does and doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Scott Gall 03:51, 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 00:55, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erumbugal

  • Keep I added this Contents. If it cannot be added here, can I use the Community Portal link. We are seriously aiming to make Wikipedia as our Collaboration project. Our major aim is to create a knowledge base here. Thanks

User:Amalasingh

I may be oversuspicious, and my Tamil is not that good, but this reads like an advert for some sort of 'groupthink' website. DJ Clayworth 22:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Would you agree that 90% of your success... Find out specific ways of improving yourself... Click on http://www.tam... Abuse of Wikipedia to advertise snake oil. Delete. Also see Erumbugal List and Amala Singh, which both qualify under CSD criterion #11 in my view, and this author's contributions. Uncle G 23:43, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. -- Curps 00:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I moved Amala Singh to User:Amalasingh (no redirect). Erumbugal List was a list of four names, speedied as a very short article with no context. -- Curps 00:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic, advertisement. Megan1967 03:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- This article has philsophic meaning Brother Larrys Maid 04:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 50% incomprehensible + 50% spam. RJFJR 05:26, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, machine-generated spam. —Korath (Talk) 09:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete You have to vote on this? It's vandalism, at the very least. ral315 22:02, Feb 4, 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 00:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JENLIGHT

No context; looks like vanity. sjorford:// 22:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete

--jenlight 22:37, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As per the comment above, seems like an unrequested vanity page. —Mar·ka·ci 22:41, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
    • Please stop calling it "vanity". Perhaps you do not understand the project, but your willingness to jump to conclusions is not helpful.
      As I stated, I never asked for it to be put up in the first place and would not have written it, but the project is not about me. I feel sorry that the entry was written when it project was too new.
      But it is not "vanity".
      --jenlight 22:46, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • A vanity page does not necessarily have to be written by its subject. However, I'd go for non-notable. People don't have an automatic right to have themselves deleted from the encyclopaedia, of course, any more than they have the right to have themselves included. But in this case my vote aligns with the subject's wishes, even if they are for different reasons. Since Jenlight already has this on xyr user page, a straight Delete rather than Userfy. Uncle G 00:02, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Could this be deleted as soon as possible? It uses my name and I am getting harrassed about it. --jenlight 22:44, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) (moved from talk page Uncle G 21:32, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC))
    • Deletions proceed as per deletion policy. There is a required lag time, for good reason. If there had been a reason, such as copyright violation or libel, to speed up the deletion, it would be happening much more quickly. But then in such cases it wouldn't be going through the VFD process in the first place. There are other processes for those cases. There is no copyright violation or libel here. If people are hassling you about the page, tell them to read this VFD discussion, as the notice on the top of the page suggests. And to expand upon Markaci's point in the edit summary: You don't get the final say in encyclopaedia articles about you, any more than anyone else gets final say in encyclopaedia articles about them. Uncle G 21:32, 2005 Feb 4 (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 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance

Some kind of incomprehensible apologetical article (and given the comments on author's User page) probably is intended as anti-Sunni Shi'a apologetics OneGuy 23:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, POV, un-encyclopaedic rant. Megan1967 03:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OneGuy 06:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's unfocused, poorly written, and unlikely to be mistaken by anyone but the author for an entry in an encyclopedia. BrandonYusufToropov 12:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep its an important event that is to lengthy to include in a single biography, an since it includes so manny diffrent persons its hard to include in a single biography. spliting it on several difrent biographys would make it harder to follow the course of event. anyhow, i have edited it a bit so its more "encylopedic" than it was to start with, althogh, it still needs improvement. -Striver 17:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no reason to delete this. BSveen 18:41, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this unfocused mess. Edeans 03:50, 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 00:52, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gnarcks

  • Delete Patent nonsense has been on wikipedia for a couple of weeks now. Waerth 23:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Till about 1990 most small cars were manufactured with a gnarcks." Only Google hit is a dubious Wiktionary page; see Wiktionary's Talk:Gnarcks. Samaritan 00:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. DD. RJFJR 05:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a nice example of what Dutch people call a 'bread with monkey' artikel. But serious: Delete, as far as I know, this word does not exist. Jcbos 12:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd translate it as 'Monkey sandwich'. JimmyShelter 12:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - another non-word Brookie 14:03, 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 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Rider

High school student who "hates Liberals". No evidence of notability despite his campaign to be the next George W. Bush. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Gwaki 23:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep because as more info is posted you will truly see how he hates liberals and is running for president. I am partly done with it. -- Gwaki 23:11, 31 Jan 2005 keep

  • Delete, looks like something from something awful--nixie 23:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant vanity/flamebait. — Ливай | ☺ 23:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hard. Vanity, not notable, etc, etc. TomTheHand 23:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article as submitted offered that "Ben Rider hates Liberals with all of his heart and would love to see Micheal Moore burned alive." Delete, of course. Also, every image looks photoshopped. Samaritan 00:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I do think the job of being GWB is already taken...Delete. humblefool® 00:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. High school vanity. Ridiculous. Average Earthman 00:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm thinking....vanity maybe? :) --Woohookitty 01:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Every image is real and i think it was a good contrbution. his name gets hits all over google. Infact Ben Rider BSM and Tripod but are part of Google suggest
    • Just because your name pops up on Google doesn't mean you're famous or otherwise notable enough to be noted in an encyclopedia. Countless millions of people have been able to hang around the Internet long enough to get a couple hundred Google hits. An encyclopedia's job is not to list them all. Please see Wikipedia:Vanity page. — Ливай | ☺ 01:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Running for president. Riiiiight. You do know you have to be 35, right? Delete. Raven42 01:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I do but you need to start getting affliated at 18. He has over 200,000 Hits a week
  • Delete child vanity, speculative notability, spam, and probably a future (shudder) poli-sci student. Please write about something other than yourself. Gazpacho 02:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Exteme-super-doubleplus delete!!!! I really hope that this is a joke. I think it is, because of the picture of Ben showing his "Commanding skills" by standing in front of a bunch of seagulls at a beach. Why don't we ask him? --NoPetrol 03:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) (e-mail link removed by Gazpacho)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Li'l Hitler before the putsch. -R. fiend 04:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ask him all you want. He is a true commander
      • Why are you ripping on Someone you don't even know - JR
  • Delete I think I might know this guy from one of the Yahoo groups I lost touch with since I saw the shining aura of the Grand WikificationWeaponofmassinstruction 05:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • He looks "special", but not in the way intended. Delete. -- Hoary 08:08, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Delete Haha high-school vanity, non-notable. Please wait to be notable enough for someone to write an article about you rather than you about yourself =) ÅrУnT†∈ 08:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ridiculous. Sometimes children need to be protected from themselves. --BM 11:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with BM - it is ridiculous - can this be the biggest piece of Wiki-rubbish ever? Brookie 14:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. But rather than literal vanity, this looks like malice to me. I don't think Ben Rider himself is the person behind this. The site the article links to now has the text "Also Alex Hansen created this site about me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Rider and apparently it's being shut down because people don't like it. Go to it and see what you think". Wikipedia:Vanity page says that some pages that seem to be "vanity" pages contain embarrassing (and possibly false) details about the subject's life and may not be written by the subject of the article. These pages should be speedily deleted, as they may contain libelous material or violate copyrights owned by the subject. Does this mean that this could be considered to be covered by speedy deletion criteria #3 (Vandalism)? If so, by all means, speedy. If not, the semi-policy seems inconsistent with the actual policy. Considering we have a fair bit of these things, I think it would be useful to find a way to actually speedy the average Malice page, although I see the problem with drawing the line. / Alarm 20:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wouldn't be so sure that this article is completely mocking him, as difficult as that may be to believe -- although there is clearly some mockery in the photos. Rider seems to acknowledge the WP article on his web site, saying that it was written by some friend of his. He seems to know about the VfD vote, and sends his readers over to read the Wikipedia article. --BM 01:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Wonderful. That means he and his friends can read my delete vote as well. If this isn't out-and-out malice from someone other than the subject, it's the work of someone who discovered our little slice of heaven and is exploiting it for a laugh. OK, then...enjoy the chuckle for now and consider seeing an opthamologist about that "lazy eye."  :^P - Lucky 6.9 02:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The only other contribs by the anon that wrote this little bit of fluff are vandalistic ones to Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro. Just so y'all know. - Lucky 6.9 02:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually I wrote this at my school after my buddies where screwing around on the computer. Lokk atwho did all teh edits. User:Gwaki
  • The pictures are from a highschool band trip and form his other swebsite, which links to the site given on Wikipedia.
  • Delete, for so many reasons I can't pick just one. How about a lack of encyclopedic interest to start. Tuf-Kat 03:08, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't believe we actually have to waste time voting to delete crap like this. Gamaliel 03:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity, Joke, etc. Delete ral315 22:02, Feb 4, 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 00:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People who got shot

"One customer shot, another injured at Miami dollar store. Police: Man Wounded In Shooting Involving Deputy Man Shot On West Beverly Boulevard." That's it. Samaritan 23:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • After edit by creator to remove even the above information, speedy-deleted as short, no-context article. -- Curps 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adjazenz

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English: A German page about some mathematical topic. jni 12:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a page on "adjacency" - comlete garbage. Not even worth translating. [comment added by anon]
    • I don't think it's complete garbage, but the explanation in Glossary of graph theory is better and the German wikipedia has an article of comparable quality about this topic (de:Adjazenz (Graphentheorie)), so this article is redundant. Does anybody object to a move of this entry from here to VfD? Sietse 08:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<end moved text>

  • Delete based on Sietse's remark. No objection to a redirect if someone thinks it's useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:21, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • A german redirect? What use in an english Wiki? Delete. humblefool® 00:35, 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 copyvio. Has been added to WP:CP Joyous 16:30, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Female tennis player stabbed in the back by a fan

My first reaction on seeing this article was "What the hey?" Even if this weren't a copyvio, the subject line is uninformative, it lacks any organizing structure, nothing links to it, & what useful information that's here should be rolled over into Monica Seles. The only reason that I don't consider this as a speedy delete is there's a small chance that the author is storing this material here while he uses it elsewhere. Delete.

Above nomination and vote from Llywrch.
Sorry. It's been a long day, & I always have trouble submitting VfD candidates. -- llywrch 23:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from several major American magazines via http://www.wso.net/monicaseles/articles/crimes%20against.htm . Samaritan 23:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. Gazpacho 02:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not the evening news, and the title reads like a news headline. This is just silly. --NoPetrol 04:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. You gotta wonder what these people are thinking. 23skidoo 05:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvios belong on WP:CP - added there. sjorford:// 09:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a news archive, copyright violation. Megan1967 01:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if the copyvio is resolved, this belongs at Wikinews, not here. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 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 delete. Joyous 00:48, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Johnston

Only notability is as centre for the "Howard Huskies Midget Travel" and "Long Reach Highschool" ice hockey teams. Pages linking here refer to one or more unrelated William Johnstons - keep them redlinked at the end! Samaritan 23:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Should be speedy deleted as nonsense--nixie 00:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete child vanity. Gazpacho 02:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, No one has ever heard of this person, his high school, or Howard Huskies Midget Travel. --NoPetrol 03:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If he makes it to the NHL, good on him; he can have an article when that happens. Right now, he's just not notable. Bearcat 06:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Spinboy 04:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_January_31_6eec.html"