Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 12

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. — mark ✎ 09:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ninjapirate

This article is about a Maddox knock-off. I don't see why it is notable, and therefore I am listing it at VFD. WhisperToMe 01:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad (graphic's kinda cute though). Wyss 01:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity page. Andrew pmk 01:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity ad. Megan1967 01:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, and I hope the image gets noted for deletion too, possible copyvio (no copy information). Tygar 09:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 14:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more nn ninjacruft. ComCat 09:20, 15 Mar 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 sitting on the "pending deletion" shelf. Joyous 16:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bakali

As it is, the article is practically a candidate for speedy deletion due to a lack of definition. I can't even find enough material on the subject to write my own. Given that it hadn't been touched since August, it either needs to be expanded soon, or it needs to go away. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Most probably the author meant the family name 'Bakali'. Mikkalai 04:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a minor race of dragon-worshippers in some role-playing game that (alas!) appears to be more well-known than the surname. But I'd encourage them to be placed in a "list of minor races in X" article (with a 1-line disambiguation at the top of an article about any real-world Bakali), in any event. Uncle G 11:07, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, little or no content with no context, else as foreign dicef with inept text, else genealogy, else vanity, else ad. Wyss 06:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks definition and context. Possibily genealogy, vanity and ad. Mgm|^(talk) 14:51, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Um, what? Delete as completely useless - David Gerard 14:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Bakali is the plural of bakalus, a rank of the Roman priesthood whose sole purpose was to wax stoats and make miniature carved sculptures of feet out of owl bones. Um... delete Grutness|^hello? 09:11, 17 Mar 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. — mark ✎ 10:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derek

• It's a vanity page, it's not encyclopedic, and it's not useful. I recommend deletion. Dpark 03:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not much else to say. Mo0[talk] 04:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not to mention that he's not even the most important Derek known to man -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just to be fair, I put him through the Google check by the name given in the article, "Derek Chan", despite the fact that the page is just labelled as Derek... 3870 results. Derek Chan and Heavy Metal? 17, and they're not even all about the same Derek Chan. Rock? 374. For someone who's a "very renowned Hong Kong rocker", he's... not very renowned. Not enough for Wikipedia yet, at least. Wakuseino 05:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment Of course, this is also noting the fact that for being so renowned, it hasn't even listed anything he's done, except "promote heavy metal and theater cultures". Wakuseino 05:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hah! Even a nobody like me's got more Google hits than that! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and now he's promoting himself. Wyss 05:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Ellsworth 16:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without verifiability - David Gerard 14:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Derek Chan, a very renowned Hong Kong rocker" is just not notable enough, yet. When he is, maybe someone else will write an article about him. Jonathunder 22:24, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Although the current article is a definite delete, IMHO, we have articles on onther names. Could this not be turned into a list of famous people called Derek? To quote Peter Jackson, "I'm a Derek - dereks don't run!" Grutness|^hello? 02:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Derek Chan is a "very renowned" rocker AllMusic.com doesn't know anything about. Vanity. vlad_mv 12:49, 17 Mar 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. — mark ✎ 10:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TRUFAX

According to the article itself, this is a "very obscure" bit of internet slang. If this catches on and becomes a very popular bit of Internet slang, at that point it may be encyclopedic. I did a search on Google but there are several companies with variations on this name (all of which use lowercase letters) and I couldn't find any examples of the term being used as described in this article. No matter what you think about the Google test in other areas, it's a fairly reliable way to judge popularity of things whose sole claim to fame is their popularity on the internet. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• del. Mikkalai 04:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dicdef, obscure online term. Wyss 05:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Eh? Regio-n-specific neologism. Delete. Tygar 09:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure slang term - so obscure I'm not convinced the author of this article didn't create it him/herself. Grutness|^hello? 10:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As the author of the article (way back in my first days on the Wikipedia), I can say it's genuine, but it is pretty deeply obscure. Besides which, it's really more of a Wikitionary entry. Origins lie in Popbitch's forums and spread from there, according to some. Sockatume 14:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang dic def. Mgm|^(talk) 14:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism - David Gerard 14:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but thank it for being kind enough to self-identify as obscure for us Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn slangcruft. ComCat 09:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, unverifiable. vlad_mv 12:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable, actually (if you know about it, which I guess doesn't count) [1][2] but still very obscure. Sockatume 14:27, 17 Mar 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. — mark ✎ 10:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Business Intelligence Network

• Del. Notability. For a website to get less than 800 google hits would mean it does not exist. Mikkalai 04:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, depends on whether or not those were unique hits, but this is an ad. Wyss 05:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 14:58, 13 Mar 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. — mark ✎ 10:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saturday Night Live Number 548

When this article was first posted, it contained some lightly reworked copyvio content from here. Now that I've removed the copyvio, there's pretty much nothing there. I don't see anything wrong with articles about TV episodes per se, but this kind of falls under the bar of notability for me. For SNL, articles about notable sketches or characters are much more useful than articles about individual episodes. /sɪzlæk˺/ 05:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic. Wyss 05:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, SNLcruft. Megan1967 06:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge or keep, interesting to SNL fans, Halle Berry Fans, Britney Spear fans, etc. Kappa 07:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, SNLcruft. DaveTheRed 08:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this article, move info to the SNL article. Tygar 09:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there seems to be precedent for keeping episode articles...or are The Simpsons and Star Trek the only ones? Funnily enough, I remembered which songs Britney sang on the show, so I added that. Everyking 09:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Begin the Great LorneCruft Purge. Delete -- Riffsyphon1024 09:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Samboy 10:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted above, popular sketches and characters are the natural units to report on with SNL, rather than entire episodes. Unlike the episodes of Star Trek and The Simpsons which–though probably only borderline notable–at least tell a cohesive story, episodes of SNL are at best only loosely tied together. Performers who have made notable SNL appearances can have those appearances mentioned in their respective articles, and should appear in List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into an article on the season. - SimonP 17:39, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What encyclopedic value can there be in just a list of sketches that were done in the same show? --BM 19:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ten. Radiant! 20:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the significant information, the host and the musical guest, are covered elsewhere. -R. fiend 02:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - verifiable, of third-party interest - David Gerard 14:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable, and completely within the spirit of Wikipedia, to have this level of detail on a notable and sometimes important cultural phenomenon. Wasn't it Jimbo Wales who, early on, supported the idea of an article for every Simpsons episode? How in the world is this project, with useful links to real people and events, any less worthy? Might it not be helpful for someone searching for information on, say, Ralph Nader, to be able to find information on the date and content of his SNL appearance? Similarly, if someone in the future is researching popular viewpoints on Gerald Ford, might not they find useful to be able to find dates, subjects, and details of SNL sketches featuring Ford? Jgm 16:04, 17 Mar 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. Block compress error: pending deletion. Joyous 16:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cantabria Surrealist Group

• Delete extremely non-notable Vanity Page article created by close friend (seem familiar?) Wikipedia user Daniel C.Boyer in June 2004. See also, advertising and spam, possible recommendation for speedy deletion as well. This, "surrealist group" only brings up 200 plus hits on Google, look at the second and third listings on your google search, Wikipedia encyclopedia mirrors. Article was created to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Typical attempts by contemporary, "surrealist" groups having articles created on Wikipedia to exploit the benefits of exposure. Note: No significant cultural history on this group can be found anywhere.Classicjupiter2 05:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not a close friend of anyone in the Cantabria Group. This is an allegation without any other basis than Classicjupiter2's anti-surrealism; if I am missing something, please let me know. Furthermore, why is "surrealist" in quotes -- on what basis have you decided this is not a surrealist group? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: 117 google hit for "Cantabria Surrealist Group"; without word "Wikipedia", 86 hits. -- Infrogmation 05:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S.: If it is decided to delete this article, I reccomend deleting Siamés: Comunicación surrealista - Imaginario crítico. as well (a stublet on the publication of this group, linked only to the Cantabria Surrealist Group article. -- Infrogmation 05:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, delete that as well.Classicjupiter2 05:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Should perhaps be merged or deleted (I think merging is the best solution), but if it is to be deleted and not merged, should go through own process. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Siamés: Comunicación surrealista - Imaginario crítico.. Postdlf 22:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily so as vandalism. Wyss 05:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't put it in the category of vandalism; if there's a problem it seems to me to be overly generous inclusiveness. I'm seeing a need for Wikipedia guidelines for notability in art related article similar to the music notability guidelines project. Pondering, -- Infrogmation 06:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I (amicably) disagree, it's pure bad-faith vandalism, these are hoax articles meant as platforms for self-promotion over a period of time... throw up a few dozen and maybe a few will stick, then seed them with links and names and poof... worldwide notability via mirrored WP. Speedy delete 'em. Wyss 10:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On what basis is it self-promotion -- why do you believe a member of the Cantabria Surrealist Group created this? Or have you decided to strip the adjective self-promotion of all meaning by using it in a very vague way synonymous with non-notability, which is a very different thing? On what basis do you think the Cantabria Surrealist Group is a hoax? Let me guess, you won't answer one of these questions. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You guessed wrong. Now, I never said the article was created by a member of that group, or that it wasn't notable. I said that it (in combination with the flurry of other surrealist articles) is a hoax, a stealth platform for ads. Please feel free to do whatever self-promotion you can, that's part of being an active surrealist and that's ok (Dali did it, after all), but not here please, since WP is not a promotional resource. Wyss 05:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't know what the word "hoax" means -- or do you really think the Cantabria Surrealist Group has no existence outside of the Wikipedia article and was created for the purpose of playing a practical joke on Wikipedia readers, or some other ulterior motive inclusive of the nonexistence of the group? Give me a break. Could you stop with these idiosyncratic attempts to strip words of meaning. Oh, and the period of Dali's greatest self-promotion was after he and surrealism parted ways, and is certainly not characteristic of surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• We have at least one of these non-articles listed at VfD every day. This looks to be stark vanity, spam, and vandalization of Wikipedia. Speedy deletion!!! Tygar 09:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: While, so far, I have listed each VfD surrealist article for deletion it is due to the fact that they 1) do not establish notability other than stating that they exist 2) give a very brief idea of where they are located and who their founders are and 3) provide you external links and nothing more, even though a few have been listed as stubs for several months. If we find one that is in the process of development, or, contains more than 1), 2), and 3), it will then be a different story. But, based on the pattern of blitz-submission of ongoing surrealist articles, I stand by my speedy delete vote for the majority of these articles that come to VfD. Tygar 09:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing more than a stark admission of anti-surrealist POV. Every article should be considered on its own merits, not as to whether it is part of a pattern. Clearly some of these groups could be notable and others not, none of them could be notable, or they all could be notable, but the notability of one should not be artificially linked to whether the existence of other articles is justified. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • In the case of articles that are primarily the work of a single contributor, the nature of the past articles submitted by the contributor is relevant. For example, if an article is proved to be an actual hoax, other contributions from the same account will probably be deleted with only cursory due diligence. Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion is always available to correct any mistakes.
• Comment I'll speedy it. But continue to list on VfD. It is better to have a discussion to refer to, as this is identifiable as vandalism only in the context of a pattern of articles, not by itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Damn, can't be deleted for technical reasons. Blanked and protected in lieu of deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity, not surreal enough. -- Cleduc 04:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Keep Deleted whichever the case happens to be Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Note Daniel C. Boyer's request for undeletion is now under discussion here. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I'm now going to irritate everyone by vacillating. I've been brooding about this and have concluded that on the basis of Classicjupiter2's description and an inspection of Daniel C. Boyer's recent edits, the surrealist-related articles don't really rise to the level of vandalism. It's not as if they were being rapidly created in defiance of consensus, or anything like that. So I've decided to unprotect and revert the article and let VfD run its course. This doesn't mean I think the article should be kept, just that I think I was needlessly precipitous. Sorry. The article has now been restored. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for good reasons give by others above. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It hasn't even declared itself a sovereign nation or issued stamps, yet. - Nunh-huh 01:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Postdlf 03:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, I do see these "Surrealist Group" articles as vandalism (never mind if they've slipped through the cracks for awhile or if the odd one now and then happens to describe an existing group), and also noticed (when I checked it the other day) that Daniel C. Boyer's user contribution history doesn't follow the usual pattern for such activity. Nevertheless, although Daniel C. Boyer's user page does provide some evidence that he is a practicing surrealist, which might account for his enthusiam in voting to keep apparently dodgy articles in his area of interest (where self-promotion abounds), readers are invited to read his posts on my talk page and decide for themselves what they mean. Wyss 04:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I should say, if I happen to think something could be speedied (for example an article stub about a group of surrealists that doesn't seem to exist), but for whatever reason it's allowed to go through VfD, that's ok by me. Wyss 04:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oh my! What do the, "surrealists" friends of Daniel C.Boyer really think about Wikipedia? Plus the real reason on how to promote online by, "surrealist" ewbragg, friend of Daniel C.Boyer (read the post on how he tells the other, "surrealists" how to promote online! Go here, http://p217.ezboard.com/fsurrealismfrm2.showMessage?topicID=51.topic

it all makes sense.Classicjupiter2 06:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked... to see this blatant evidence of self-promotion by surrealists! (grin) More power to 'em, truth be told, 'cause surrealism can blow out the cobwebs now and again. Dali (to use an example everyone's heard of) had loads of talent in addition to being a shameless self-promoter and huckster. I'm not too keen on the ol' melting watch motif, but he did a couple of things in the late 40s ([3] [4]) that I actually like. Whatever talent these guys have isn't the pith of it, though. WP's not for self-promotion, or advertising, or auto-bios, or stealth spam. Funny thing is, if they put some of this same energy into getting some real-world exhibitions, performance art, local press coverage or whatever, I'll bet they could weasel into WP by the rules (heh heh). Wyss 06:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read the Manifesto of Surrealism to see what Breton and surrealism thinks about "talent" ("Forget about your genius, your talents, and the talents of everyone else"). Notice that Dali and surrealism parted ways. Note also that surrealism is not an artistic movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Wyss's talk page will show Daniel's inability to prove anything factual concerning this matter. One of the best books recently written on Surrealism was by Kristen Strom, called, "Making History" (it came out around 2002) and it focuses mainly on the surrealist groups of the 20's and 30's. It shows you the pictures, writings, etc., etc., of group members together and seperate, but what I am getting at is, you have facts right in front of you, that prove that there were active surrealist groups. Upon researching surrealism from its beginnings up to now (2005), one needs to ask oneself, why so very little material on contemporary surrealists that can be easily validated, especially in this day and age of Real-Time Internet, Media, etc., etc., and all the reference material that you can get on the current, "surrealist" groups is mainly an article on Wikipedia, with two to four sentences.

• • You are at it again, with the "Real-Time Internet" [sic] &c. You do realise that books, newspapers, magazines still exist, right? Why are you continuing to duck the question of why you discount them? What about the fact that at least one of the "surrealist groups of the 20's and 30's" (you give no reason whatsoever as to why you have picked these decades out of a hat) -- The Czech Group -- continues to exist today and has had an uninterrupted history since that time? Not that I agree with your characterisation; what you are mainly doing is excluding reference sources that go against you, based on a variety of ever-shifting excuses. Oh, I know, "too many gaps to establish credibility". --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Wyss hit it right on the mark, as did a few others. These, "surrealists" and "surrealist" groups today say they exist. OK, lets take their word for it for a moment.

• • Who are the "they" if they do not exist? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Then why is there practically next to zilch online that the public can research regarding their: Exhibits, Documented Group Activity (in newspapers and any press. Breton and co. used to get tons of press back in the day, from the 20's up until the 60's) Protests, etc.,etc., etc.

• • And the Chicago Surrealist Group, e.g. has gotten tons of press in The New Yorker, in the Chicago Tribune, the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition in Art News &c. Oh, but these are not legitimate sources because they are not online. And in this era of the "Real-Time Internet" (whatever that is, that's all that counts. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Granted you have a menu of Geocities websites, self-made do-it-yourself websites like the bogus, "surrealcoconut" (that Boyer is also on) and PLENTY of Wikipedia articles, no less, that tell you that contemporary surrealism is an active movement, but why is there so much protest from their main promoter here on Wikipedia, Daniel C. Boyer? The reason is clear: Your exposure to the public is very rewarding if you have an article on Wikipedia, where it can be mirrored, replicated and placed on practically every single encyclopedia website on the net. Thus, you exist!!! This is a Hoax.Classicjupiter2 07:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • You're not sure what the word "hoax" means, are you? Are you saying that there's no such person as "Daniel C. Boyer"? Then why are you so concerned about him? Classicjupiter2, ask yourself why you are so upset about this? It should be none of your concern, let it go, &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, as for The Chicago Surrealist Group, you or somebody should provide the references and sources that you keep on mentioning. Then I will change my vote on that article. As for all the other articles, you better explain why you are using the Wikipedia service to promote your friends. You still provide no evidence. Your friend, Eric W.Bragg's statement on how to promote your surrealism online certainly proves that your assertions on an active surrealist movement is a hoax. "...no need to rely on Wikipedia then". Busted!Classicjupiter2 17:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am hardly "busted" because of this latest entry in your pattern of mischaracterisations which it is difficult to see as other than deliberate. Bragg is essentially saying that one cannot count on Wikipedia articles to accurately discuss surrealism. Saying that his statements prove that "an active surrealist movement is a hoax" is such a reach (it might be a hoax, it might not be a hoax, but clearly his statement wouldn't control that) is hardly worth discussing. You are certainly aware of Arsenal, Surrealist Subversions, WHAT Are You Going to Do About It?, S. U. RR., Anologon, the World Surrealist Exhibition, "Totems Without Taboos", &c., &c., yet if my guess is correct you will find some reason that all of these are fraudulent. This, however, will be nothing more than a (novel) POV, a POV to be discussed in the relevant article(s) but certainly not a basis for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What denial! I am not going to argue surrealism here with you Daniel. This is an open source encyclopedia that is based on the presentation of facts in the articles on here. You are busted. Eric W.Bragg's statement proves it, and that is just one piece of evidence. You had every opportunity to provide your evidence to back up your articles and the votes prove that they are a hoax. Granted, I will recognize the Chicago Surrealist Group as a group, but I see the obvious (again I really do not want to argue here), that it is a group of artists and poets that allege to be the chosen representatives of Surrealism. Mr.Rosemont (and his wife) both have built their artistic careers on the notion that they met Andre Breton, and if I was an historian, I would have much difficulty in believing them that they had direct contact with him. Granted, I believe that they went to Paris and that they attended an exhibition while Breton may have been present, but the "facts", presented in Rosemont's account is very vague and too many obvious gaps. Dan, if you were a role model of mine, (and if you were the greatest influence on me and my beliefs), and if we were writing letters to each other for 3 years, then I get the chance to meet my role model and hero(you), I certainly would document that in a picture for history no less.

Notice how Rosemont's reputation in the art world is only limited to Chicago, or am I wrong again? You love pointing out that I am wrong, but I see the obvious. Anyway, forget Rosemont and his group for the moment, the issue here is the promotion of your friend's groups and that is being examined here on this VfD by fellow Wikipedians. Why do I have to go through all the trouble to verify your articles? Why does it take a VfD to ,(all of a sudden), get you to start coming up with such informative answers that are still vague and really baseless? Dan, you keep on shifting the examination here? If you are going to promote your friends on here, at least give us something more than two to four sentences and practically next to nothing on a topic that is going to be mentioned in an encyclopedia no less! Dan, have you really read the feedback posted by the fellow Wikipeidans?

As for the Chicago Group, I will change my vote on the exception that I recognize them as a commercial outlet for retrospective surrealism from 1967 to 2003. Dan, have you noticed when the last time that Chicago upgraded their website? Anyway, the other articles are a hoax. These are your friends that only do all this as a platform for exposure. Look at your friends forum.Classicjupiter2 21:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dan, pictures are very helpful for researchers. I recommend that you get a hold of pictures(fast) of these people to try to save your articles, just to at least prove that they exist.Classicjupiter2 21:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Presently, I am more concerned about the unsourced statement, added by Daniel C. Boyer, that a cantaloupe can be a charge in heraldry. I'd like to think this is an obscure but interesting fact about modern heraldry (the cantaloupe not being known in the middle ages) but I'd be much happier if this were sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Appears in arms of Santo Estêvão in Portugal. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please continue discussion in Talk:Charge (herald). This site identifies the melon-like objects on the arms of Santo Estêvão as "gold rocks." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It isn't proven to be active and significant. All the Google hits for "Cantabria Surrealist Group" have something to do with Wikipedia, expect a paragraph in Surrealcoconut. "Grupo Surrealista de Cantabria" gives 44 hits. -Hapsiainen 14:51, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 10:24, Mar 18, 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. — mark ✎ 10:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devastatin dave

Apparently there is some guy who calls himself "Devastatin' Dave - The Turntable Slave" where the external link on that page points, but the rest is extreme nonsense. Note how he was "born as the first test tube baby to an African American couple in 1954", his father was "martyred" in the imaginary "Second Great Anglo-Zanzibar war", his mother had hopes for him to become a "Professor of Advanced Discrete Analytical Multi-variable biphasic topology" (but doesn't every mother?) etc. I nominate to delete.--Pharos 05:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Do not BJAODN, do not collect $200. - Lucky 6.9 06:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, obvious hoax. Megan1967 06:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy as pranking is fine by me. -- Infrogmation 06:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As fun as it is to look at, I think Pharos's description of it was enough for me to remember this by. Wakuseino 06:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is nonsense. Maybe I should start calling myself Devastatin' Dave. DaveTheRed 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "Krazy Klerk Killer (KKK)"? Definitely a joke. But why couldn't this go in Wikipedia:BJAODN? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:39, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although funny, Wikipedia is no place for humor. Except for Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. --Arm
• Delete, unwikified nonsense. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ho ho hoax. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 15:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but deserves a spot on BJAODN. Ellsworth 16:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ha ha ha. Delete - David Gerard 14:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but also comment: Note that the album exists and is a mini-meme, just because it sucks so much (the cover doesn't help, either). See [5] for a example. A non-patent nonsense article might be okay, but this one's obviously got to go. -- grm_wnr          23:00, 13 Mar 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. — mark ✎ 10:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GameFAQSASCII

Non-notable, vanity, etc. Alexa rank #4,700,000+. CryptoDerk 06:19, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Tygar 09:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity article. Mgm|^(talk) 15:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 14:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Marc Overmars. —Korath (Talk) 04:53, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Overmars

This article appears to be the vanity page for a unnotable writer of non-libre free software. Samboy 09:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Being bold and redirecting this to Marc Overmars - an easy mistake to make. Chris 14:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I've played Gamemaker games, but I don't find Mark Overmars particularly notable. Keep the redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 15:04, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Hey! I don't know if it's the same person, but Mark Overmars was the co-author of a notable book on computational geometry. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep redirect to footballer - David Gerard 14:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 04:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Websense

The article is pure spam. delete --User:Arm

• Speedy deleting as spam and copyvio of http://ww2.websense.com/global/en/ProductsServices/WebsenseEnterprise . – ClockworkSoul 16:54, 12 Mar 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, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Jewkes

Get's two google hits that refer to him. For a supposed author, that's poor. Xezbeth 12:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• True, with 2 short story sales he can be considered a published author, but I doubt that's enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If it is, I'll be in here soon myself. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 15:10, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline delete - vanity, trivial - David Gerard 14:51, 13 Mar 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angel One

This is a randomly chose Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. Since other "fancruft", such as episode guides, book chapter guides, jedis knights, pokemons, digimons etc are getting merged or deleted, Trek episodes should go the same way. Kappa 13:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Retaliatory VfDs are pointless, by the way. Xezbeth 13:24, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • This Vfd is just aiming for consistency. Kappa 13:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I should have mentioned my vote is merge or keep as for other fancruft. Kappa 13:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You nominated this page for deletion and then vote "merge or keep"? Come on, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Keep. Carrp | Talk 13:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • These trek-cruft things will have to be Vf'd eventually, I don't think it's disruptive to consider an example at the same time as many similar things are coming up. Kappa 15:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Kappa, I don't get your logic here. Even if this survives VfD, this or some other Star Trek episode may be put up for VfD in the future. Zzyzx11 02:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I think it's less likely that they will be re-Vfd'ed if the question of them being allowed to stay is discussed now, when things are in flux, instead of later, when they are likely to be a standout island of cruft. Kappa 02:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Individual episodes of Trek are notable enough to have articles, plus Angel One IIRC has already survived a VfD. And a second reminder to the nominator to review WP:POINT 23skidoo 16:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - SimonP 17:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and require the proposer to perform any merge/redirecting. --iMb~Mw 18:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. And lord knows you're not the first one to think of this particular point. --Fastfission 21:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Unlike SNL episodes, ST:TNG at least have a coherent storyline notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 01:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course! Yes Angel One is a boring episode, but eventually I hope to have all Next Gen episodes covered eventually.It takes time. My suggesting is: if you don't like then don't look at it. Unless Wikipeda has a shortage of drive space, which I heard they don't since this place nearly doubles in size on a monthly basis, then keep it. There are a ton of other STUPID CRAP here to get rid of in the meantime. Taking out Trek stuff is a waste of time. Plus Memory Alpha sucks. Their site way more disorganized than this place, and they have more issues with downtime. Cyberia23 07:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator should be censured for blatant WP:POINT violation. This sort of thing is even listed there - David Gerard 14:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Where? Kappa 16:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why, Kappa, why? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable trekkiecruft. ComCat 09:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pop culture encyclopedic Tjc 12:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Question---I've just hopped back onto VFD after a long hiatus, and so I missed the first part of this lovely drama. What got deleted that pissed off Kappa so much? What point is Kappa trying to make? grendel|khan 15:11, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • The direct comparison is with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Saturday Night Live Number 548. I wasn't any more pissed-off than usual, although the nomination probably sounds grumpy because of the cold medicine I'd taken. This was a real attempt to get more consistency, which I value despite what WP:POINT says. Kappa 23:48, 17 Mar 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 is now replaced by non-copyvio version from temp subpage. Mgm|^(talk) 15:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zilwaukee Bridge

Somebody learned their lesson after copying other peoples' content to generate an article; now, they have their own words to say on the temporary page to replace the copyright violation template page with.

• Obliterate the copyright template and merge in the proper temporary article in with the real page. --GoofyGuy 03:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete so Zilwaukee Bridge/Temp can be moved there - it might be nice if speedy covered this. --SPUI (talk) 14:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I just added this to VFD, as the nominator hadn't gone all the way. --SPUI (talk) 14:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I went ahead and did the move. I don't think you need to go through vfd to get rid of a copyvio. Just ask an admin to delete. Mgm|^(talk) 15:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 04:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• 19:08, Mar 12, 2005 Neutrality deleted Largest relegion (content was: '{{db|typo clutter}}#REDIRECT Religion')

[edit] Largest relegion

Redundant with Major world religions and the individual articles, but I don't think any content needs to be merged. Some content pasted from [7], I don't know the copyright status. Also, misspelled, so delete but don't redirect. Thue | talk 14:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Largest religion and then redirect. Kappa 15:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 04:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iustin Capra

This article needs a reality check at least. I don't get any english google hits for his name. The article also says he invented an "anti-gravity machine which reduced the weight with 30%", which I think I would have heard of. Should be deleted unless verified. Thue | talk 14:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Note to nominator: please follow correct procedure for nomination. particularly used of subst: Chris 14:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why use the subst? It is much cleaner to just use {{vfd}}. Thue | talk 14:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Using subst: expands the tag, so changes in diffs are easier to spot. Speedied article as hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 15:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Which changes are easier to see? it is perfectly easy to see when a non-subst vfd-tag has been added or removed. Thue | talk 15:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Really? Some people don't use the Edit Summary field for adding the tag, and vandals occasionally remove it usually without touching the edit summary. When you're looking at a diff, {{vfd}} doesn't stand out, whereas the removal of a whole bunch of lines does. Also beware of unauthorised changes to the template reflecting on every page that has it included directly. Chris 21:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not convinced; at least I am capable to see the removal of {{vfd}} in a diff. Vandalism of the template doesn't happen often enough, and is corrected quickly enough, that it doesn't convince me to use subst. Still seems like a rule for the rules own sake, so I will continue using {{vfd}}. Thue | talk 08:42, 14 Mar 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 16:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geoffrey Ruddick

This was tagged for speedy, but it at least makes some claim to notability, so I'm bringing it here, although I don't think it has much chance. He didn't have a professional career as a sportman, presumably because of his injury, and I don't think the boy's football club played for, Walls Ends Boys Club [8], is exclusive enough to make all its alumni notable, even by my liberal definition. I vote delete unless the club is very exclusive or he was an elite part of it. Kappa 14:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 14:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We're onto notability-by-association again. You are not notable just because you went to school with someone famous. Chris 14:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no verifiability supplied - David Gerard 14:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no notability-by-association Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Mar 14, 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 16:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ellman

Artist of questionable notability - main google presence is the artist's homepage. Possible vanity page. JeremyA 15:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without third-party verifiability - David Gerard 14:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete articles on people of less apparent notability than myself. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, Mar 16, 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 16:07, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Rossi

Article makes no claim of notability. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 16:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete pronto. Deb 16:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reads like a caption to a 70's porn mag. Hilarious. nn, vanity. -- Cleduc 04:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 14:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook. —Korath (Talk) 00:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roast Potatoes

This page is nothing but a recipe. Rmhermen 00:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete : Yumminess is not a qualification for inclusion (at the moment!) – ClockworkSoul 16:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yummy-sounding recipes should be transwikied, using a {{recipe}} tag. Kappa 16:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 'Transwiki to Wikibooks cookbook. No particular cultural significance to roast potatoes and nothing here but a recipe. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, see ibid. Ellsworth 23:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Megan1967 01:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Easy transwiki - David Gerard 14:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki sounds delicious! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all food articles. Grue 20:49, 14 Mar 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 16:07, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humphrey Lynch

Non-notable bar tender. Rmhermen 01:23, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete : Can I have an article too? – ClockworkSoul 16:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No. --BM 17:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 01:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. -- Infrogmation 05:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S.: If this is deleted, I suggest Humphrey Moynihan should go as well, as it's the same article with a different last name. -- Infrogmation 05:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable - David Gerard 14:11, 13 Mar 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. Block compress error; to be deleted later. Joyous 16:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Political Forum

Internet forum in existence for less than a year. No more notable than any other website. JeremyA 16:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to actually be less notable than many other websites. ;) Splinter groups of more significant forums are common and not particularly exciting. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 01:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 14:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, Mar 14, 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 16:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kimachi Media

Is this company notable? Was marked as a speedy delete. Thue | talk 16:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article and a quick google search doesn't find an indication of notability. Thue | talk 16:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Ellsworth 19:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, company promo. Megan1967 01:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad without third-party verifiability anyone cares - David Gerard 14:10, 13 Mar 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 16:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Place on Earth Antiques

Article doesn't indicate notability. Should be deleted unless notability is established. Thue | talk 16:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. I like the name though. DaveTheRed 19:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Ellsworth 19:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, company promo. Megan1967 01:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, advertising. -- Infrogmation 05:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Deeltee without third-party verifiability - David Gerard 14:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Contributor to Transwiki it to Yellowikis. -- RHaworth 10:10, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Who set this up for the un-speedy process?--Wetman 10:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yellow pages. --Aranae 05:32, Mar 15, 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 16:00, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James W. Anderson III

Article doesn't indicate notability. The only specific fact in the article is that he is developing The Realms of Legend, but a google search for "James W. Anderson III" "The Realms of Legend" only gets 3 google hits. Delete as not notable. Thue | talk 16:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Also seems to be a self-confessed autobio, which I feel we should be somewhat stricter on. Alai 22:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity without third-party verifiable evidence anyone cares - David Gerard 14:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Harry S. Truman. There was nothing to merge. —Korath (Talk) 01:02, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Jane Truman

Subject is only of geneological interest. Ellsworth 16:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect unless she's done anything worth mentioning in her own right. Treborbassett 23:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Harry S Truman. Megan1967 01:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect as above. No evidence given of notability. -- Infrogmation 05:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Then it can be broken back out if there's, ahh, an article to write - David Gerard 14:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I would suggest that this be the standard procedure for stubs about otherwise non-notable family members of notable people. Note also that doing this doesn't require a VfD. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What is there to merge? Where should it redirect? --Carnildo 08:25, 17 Mar 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. —Korath (Talk) 05:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rich

• Delete - dictionary definition Treborbassett 17:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a disambiguation page, not a dictionary definition. --iMb~Mw 18:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, disambig page. Disambiguation pages are very helpful! :D Tygar 18:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although we probably only need the wealthy and Richard links, not the multiple definitions of rich. DaveTheRed 19:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Actually this is a dicdef, it only disambigs between several possible applications of the word. As such, I'd say transwiki except that Wiktionary already has it, so Delete. Radiant! 20:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I maintain this is a dictionary definition. If someone comes across the word 'rich' and wonders what it means, presumably they are in need of a dictionary. If someone wants to look up 'wealth' in Wikipedia, they will search for 'wealth' not 'rich'. All the other meanings of 'rich', except perhaps "Richard", here are straightforward dictionary definitions. In the case of "Richard" this page, if kept, should simply be a redirect to that page. Furthermore, "richness" redirects to this page - this seems, if anything, the wrong way round to me. At any rate, it seems strange to have even a disambiguation page for this word. Treborbassett 20:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. I apologise for the inconsistency of inverted commas in the above! Treborbassett 20:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is disambiguating between the concept rich and the name Richard at least. Thue | talk 20:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment rich isn't the name of a concept; richness is, but the richness article redirects here. That seems wrong to me. Treborbassett 20:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: So replace rich with wealth in my vote above. My vote stands. Thue | talk 23:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's inherent in the nature of disambiguation that it be between encyclopaedia articles that (would) have the same (common) name. There's no ambiguity when the names are different, such as "wealth" and "Richard" are. Uncle G 00:17, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
      • I can imagine somebody searching for "rich" when they want to read about "richness" or "wealth", and I can imagine somebody searching for "rich" when they are want "Richard". Keeping the page as a disambiguation page on that ground makes sense to me. Thue | talk 00:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This page could probably be expanded and I'm against removing disambiguation pages in general. Carbonite 22:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have nothing against disambiguation pages, but this is barely one. It offers a link to 'wealth' and 'Richard' (and nothing else - it defines some other uses). Who would enter 'rich' to look up 'wealth'? It seems strange to have an adjective (in all cases except Richard) as the title for an article, disambiguation page or otherwise. Treborbassett 22:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• For a page to be a disambiguation page, there have to be more than one encyclopaedia article that could conceivably be at the title. There aren't any encyclopaedia articles by this title. The actual encyclopaedia articles are all under the name Richard, which is itself a disambiguation page, and which also mentions "Rich". All that this page is actually doing is disambiguating between a dictionary entry and a redirect to Richard. Redirect to the Richard disambiguation page and link to Wiktionary:Rich and Wiktionary:Richard from there. (I've done the latter two steps .) Uncle G 22:59, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:48, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as disambig page. Megan1967 01:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. While I agree it seems to be a dicdef disguised as a disambig (as opposed to a real disambig), there is an awful lot that links there. I was tempted to change Richness so that it redirects to Wealth instead of to Rich, but then it occurred to me that for me at least "richness" is more likely to refer to the creaminess and heaviness of foods like egg nog than it is to be a synonym for wealth. But I don't see that richness in that sense is worthy of an encyclopedia article. As for the name, first names belong on Wiktionary, not here. --Angr 12:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 13:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as valid disambiguation for Richard versus wealthy. The other, dicdef entries can probably go, but they don't seem to be acutely harmful. I've added a link to rich in Wiktionary. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Christ's College, Cambridge. —Korath (Talk) 05:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CCPQS

Delete this article and merge content into Christ's College, Cambridge There isn't much here and there seems to be little that could be added. Treborbassett 17:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge, there is no apparent reason to use the more complicated delete/merge process. --iMb~Mw 18:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes perhaps that's better. Treborbassett 20:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 13:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. Please note that "merge & delete" is an incompatible vote. vlad_mv 13:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 05:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• 19:08, Mar 12, 2005 Neutrality deleted Category:White Civil Rights groups in the U.S. (Nazi trolling.)
• 07:23, Feb 6, 2005 Neutrality deleted Category:White Civil Rights groups in the U.S. (Per CfD)

[edit] Category:White Civil Rights groups in the U.S.

This category should be deleted because it is being used for POV white supremacist viewpoints by User:24.176.84.131, who has been blocked for one month in the past. He/she has resumed adding white supremacist POV to Creativity Movement and this page since the block expired. Delete. Andrew pmk 18:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Categories belong on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. —Korath (Talk) 18:31, Mar 12, 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 22:31, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte Brooke

Bondage model who also sells erotica/pornography. Page looks like an advert. Not the most notable Charlotte Brooke [9], but before replacing the page with something about the Irish writer, I would prefer consensus first on regarding this one as non-notable and advertising so it does not have to be preserved elsewhere. --Henrygb 18:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Only two hits for "Charlotte Brooke" + "elbow" and 11 for "charlotte brooke" + fetish, so I doubt that she's particularly famous in her field. Unless evidence of notability is provided, delete and remove the links from Bondage model. Kappa 19:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad unless third-party verifiability is supplied - David Gerard 14:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — RJH 18:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 14:50, 16 Mar 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concurrent user

Extremely minimal dicdef. Hasn't been expanded in 11 months, and I don't see that happening...ever. Wikitionary if they want it, but delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, harmless stub. I expanded it a bit. Thue | talk 19:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename, and add a disambig at Concurrence which is currently only about the legal kind. Radiant! 20:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this can be defined more than a page in Wiktionary. Tygar 22:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more than a dicdef. Needs refs, though - David Gerard 14:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — okay it's expanded a little. — RJH 18:10, 13 Mar 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 (as redirect). —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portmanteu

• Delete. This is a misspelling of portmanteau. - Lev 19:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Lev, From: Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?: Misspellings. Zzyzx11 01:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Why not Redirect and Merge! TAS 20:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) It is a redirect? Then delete TAS 09:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• We could just redirect it. (Is it a likely enough misspelling that someone else might make it?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Common misspelling is not a reason for deletion. --Andylkl 20:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a redirect. But why encourage misspelling? If someone links there and the link is blue, people will see it and think this is the correct spelling. Anyway, common (?) misspelling is not a reason for keeping. - Lev 21:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Lev, please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Zzyzx11 01:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh no, I've just created a redirect mispeling -> misspelling ;-) Lev 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I support Lev's argument for not making it a redirect. Thue | talk 22:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect and take redirects to wikipedia:redirects for deletion. Kappa 01:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Turns up 208 googles, which goes to show for the average American's speling skilz. As such, keep as redirect. Radiant! 02:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not all of those results are from American websites. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-13 05:52 Z
• Keep as the redirect it is now. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-13 05:52 Z
• Why encourage laziness? All of our articles should be coded numerically and our users should be required to own Wikipedia card files. Keep the redirect. Articles should be easy to find, even for spelling bee rejects. Rhobite 06:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep present redirect - David Gerard 14:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Policy is to keep common misspellings. Eric119 22:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the redirect it is now. It's likely a common misspelling. Jonathunder 22:30, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
• Redirect if possible. ComCat 09:12, 15 Mar 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. One more for the "pending deletion" page. Joyous 22:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arab Surrealist Movement

• Delete Non-notable Vanity Page The article was created on July 1,2004 by user Daniel C.Boyer to promote his "surrealist" friend here on Wikipedia. I cannot find any solid or credible reference sources that can verify the information in this article. Note: the article is only two sentences in both paragraphs and reference source is interactivist website used by activists for self-promotion of statements. I recommend speedy deletion for this article. What is this Arab Surrealist Movement? According to the article, it only mentions one name, a friend of the user who created the article!Classicjupiter2 20:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not a friend of any members of the Arab Surrealist Movement, nor do I even know any of them. And what is your basis for calling the Arab Surrealist Movement one person and putting "surrealist" in quotation marks? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nearly year old stub with no modification. External link gives "Fatal error: Call to undefined function: pg_pconnect() in /home/root_www/active-cvs/stlouis/webcast/email_display.php3 on line 21". Tygar 22:43, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Title gets 58 google hits, 52 without "Wikipedia". -- Infrogmation 05:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Keep if third-party verifiable evidence that anyone cares can be found - David Gerard 14:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as very likely spam/vanity unless convincing third-party verifiable evidence to the contrary is presented prior to expiration of VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 17:54, 17 Mar 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. Pending deletion, will be deleted Any Time Now. Joyous 22:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brett Osborn

Unlike Tony Martin, this person isn't nearly as well-known. Article doesn't suggest further notability. Xezbeth 20:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE, insignificant article. - Evanwohrman 20:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV screed, no verifiability supplied - David Gerard 14:05, 13 Mar 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:49, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetrixx

Another psychedelic trance project article created by user:Ld from Germany. I recommend that its article be removed because it meets none of the Music notability criteria. It has 457 google hits 216.119.136.113 485 Lycos hits when searched with the word "trance", about the same number of psychedelic trance fanatics with computers. The individuals behind the artistic project, Stefan Lewin and Heike Fahrmeyer searched with the word "trance" get about 26 and 13 unique google hits, respectively. The project released two albums on Tatsu records, a label which has released a total of 15 albums (6 actual, 9 compilations). Magnetrixx's 4 labelmates with actual albums are also non-notable, each scoring less google hits than Magnetrixx, except Oryx with 477 hits (confusion with other Oryxs disrupted that search. With "psychedelic trance" gets 110 on Lycos). Neither Magnetrixx nor any of his Tatsu Records labelmates with actual albums are mentioned in the All Music Guide. 64.154.26.251 22:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. According to TripOut New York Magazine, "[Magnetrixx] have joined the ranks of some of the most sought-after German progressive psytrance producers and live acts on the international circuit today." They have been on several tours in the United States, including New York and Cleveland. [10] -Ld | talk 22:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: No offense, Ld, but where is your evidence that they had more than two stops on their United States "tour" in 2004. And more than one stop on their 2003 United States "tour"? They may have toured other places, there's just no evidence for it on their website or the article. I would ask the wikipedians to judge the extent of their "touring" for themselves at [11]. They don't use the word "tour". It lists 18 dates for 2004, with two festivals, but including a birthday party and a Christmas party. Please don't add misleading information to the article to save it. Let the truth speak for itself. If you need more time to establish their notability, just say so. 216.119.136.113 23:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I did not create this article. It was created by 134.100.205.196 on 5/11/2004, and modified by several other people, including myself. See [12] for details. -Ld | talk 22:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Funny how you added a discography, external link and text about touring (calling it a minor edit) 16 minutes after it was nominated, though. You obviously take quite an interest. 64.154.26.251 22:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact, this is one of the side effects of VfD. When nominated for deletion, articles are often improved with additional information to prevent them from being deleted. In fact a while back I and several others helped improve the Afghan Defense Ministry in the same fashion to prevent it from being deleted. It is now an excellent Wikipedia article. If you see a stub that you believe is not useful, it may be worth to expand it rather than nominate it for VfD. -Ld | talk 22:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I understand that improvement aspect. You know, I was skeptical about there being only 0-3 trance articles that had a problem, like you said, but you were pretty on the mark--the creds of those artists that have articles in the List of psychedelic trance artists are pretty solid. I probably wouldn't have even nominated this group if I had had the latest flashplayer and was able to go to their site to see how extensive their touring was (their record label just gave a vague sentence). [Comment: Ld had made misleading statements again on the extent of their touring on the article page. The "touring" seems pretty minimal. I probably still would have nominated them 216.119.136.113 23:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)] If you have any info you want to put in about Fuzzion touring, I won't nominate them either. 64.154.26.251 23:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I dont know much about Fuzzion other than that they have one hit track and a number of EP releases. I'm not going to object if you nominate them. -Ld | talk 00:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't think I have the heart to. It's obvious to me now that the comments that you left on the 1967 songs were meant to be a sort of a tribute through psychedelic trance artists of today to the first Summer of Love 64.154.26.251 01:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 02:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, two real albums and several real EPs - David Gerard 14:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Kappa 10:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; notable within a significant cultural movement that happens not to be highly web-connected (good for them, maybe?). Jgm 15:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME. —Korath (Talk) 02:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dance Dance Revolution MegaMix

It's not just a video game. It's not just a video game sequel. It's a black market hack to a video game sequel. A web search turns up nothing useful for expanding this into a real article, and only barely confirms its existence at all. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Dance Dance Revolution Extreme. It's notable as a scam, but not on its own. --SPUI (talk) 22:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep per Spui. Kappa 01:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 02:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have merged (actually totally rewritten) it at Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME#Bootlegs. --SPUI (talk) 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep redirect. Well done - David Gerard 14:06, 13 Mar 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 22:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mom's Box

No evidence of notability. Joke article, delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Drivel. Delete.
  • Unisgned vote by The Anome
• Some sort of region specific pro(f/v)anity. Delete. Tygar 22:45, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• One possibility is to redirect the catchphrase to Opie and Anthony, the people whose catchphrase it apparently is. Although I'm quite happy to live without the redirect as long as when the article is deleted the dangling hyperlink goes also, lest this article comes back, as it has done once already (see the deletion log). Uncle G 23:33, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 02:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What everybody else said. RickK 05:41, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 14:06, 13 Mar 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 22:27, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Milan

"Dean Milan is a musician. What type is undetermined." He doesn't show up in in the All Music Guide or the UBL. He does not, as far as I can tell, meet WikiProject Music's guidelines either. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. He should at least determine what type of musician he is before he gets his own article. DaveTheRed 00:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable here. Zzyzx11 01:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 02:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Undetermined. I mean, delete - David Gerard 13:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, Mar 14, 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick

Dicdef if ever I saw one Treborbassett 23:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's actually a type 1 disambiguation between a word, a surname, and a trade name. It could do with heavy cleanup to make that clear, though. The current article is horrendously unbalanced. Uncle G 23:42, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
• Keep,please.User:Andycjp13th March 2005
• Needs a quick Clean up job. It should be a standard disambiguation page. Zzyzx11 01:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes you're quite right, so Keep - it is a disambiguation page, but it does need to be cleaned up. The dictionary definition of quick should go. Treborbassett 01:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Tygar 02:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I've given it a once-over. It should be clearer now what this page is. Uncle G 10:33, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
• Keep new form. Good work - David Gerard 13:34, 13 Mar 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 22:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Oestreicher

Runs a one-man firm. Article does not establish notability, should be deleted. Thue | talk 23:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not even remotely notable. DaveTheRed 00:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why is he notable? Zzyzx11 01:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline ... needs third-party verifiability that anyone cares - David Gerard 13:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but expand. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 05:20, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• 02:13, Mar 13, 2005 Rich Farmbrough deleted Deadcore (Speedy. Request by author, subject and only editor.)

[edit] Deadcore

Non-notable, clearly vanity. The bottom of the article reads: "Article written by Matt himself, in a third-person form." Darkcore 00:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not very happy with this VfD. This is an example case where VfD can be avoided - after adding {{unencyclopedic}} template and explanation his Talk apge, the author agreed the page was created in error and should be deleted (content belongs his userpage). Speedy delete as requested, and next time maybe we can give newbies more time to learn and correct erors before calling the VfD behemot. If possible, consensual deletion is better than VfD. --Wikimol 00:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, I suppose. As Wikimol said though, it looked like he mistook this for the userpage. Wakuseino 00:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:35, 13 Mar 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. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Coulson

Another vanity page --Anonymous Cow 00:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Lacrimosus 01:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Smells like vanity. Zzyzx11 01:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Such. Delete. Tygar 02:28, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CV - David Gerard 13:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Exceptionally able at travelling? Hey that's me. :) But why is he on this page twice? — RJH 17:56, 13 Mar 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.