Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] March 15

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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Green Field

Delete or send to major cleanup, it is written in first person and appears to be an advertisement. Jersyko 05:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, advertising, invalid ttile. Probably copyvio. RickK 05:45, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Green Field Mountaineering Club and make sure to delete current title after move. Page contains enough information for its article. I didn't even know where it was located until I read the article. --Ryan! | Talk 06:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 08:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. Also, subject isn't notable. Radiant! 11:55, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep it and categorize it to non notable, first person written advertisements category. Aelianus Tacticus 11:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Nonsensical vote aside, Aelianus Tacticus appears to be another username of Aeimnestus, who in this discussion admits to being Faethon, a public account. Android79 14:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes of course I am Faethon. If you dont like my vote, you are welcome to login to my account and change it. The password is the same as my username. :-) Aelianus Tacticus 17:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete' Raving Loony
  • Delete, advertisement. Android79 14:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Only 3 Google hits for "Green Field Mountaineering Club" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unnotable whoknew?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and move to The Hollywood Knights. —Korath (Talk) 00:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newbomb turk

This sub-stub reads, "Newbomb Turk is a fictional character from the 1980s movie "The Hollywood Knights". He is played by Actor/Comedian Robert Wuhl." End of stub. There does not appear to be an appropriate place to merge this article. How might this text potentially benefit visitors to Wikipedia? Should it be expanded? Is it remotely encyclopedic? --GRider\talk 00:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Newbomb turk. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 00:10 Z
  • Keep He was the central character, and has 3,070 Google Hits, quite respectable for a 1980 movie character. Also, New Bomb Turks are named after him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • This could almost certainly be redirected to the movie. In addition, I want to concur with Markaci that Vfd is not Jeoparody, and your nominations should not come in the form of a question. Meelar (talk) 00:54, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Hollywood Knights. Move if no such article. Demi T/C 01:39, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    • Agree with Demi. Merge or move. RickK 05:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Newbomb Turk. Passes the Google test easily. --Ryan! | Talk 06:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Hollywood Knights and add redirect. Megan1967 06:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Hollywood Knights if possible. ComCat 08:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Since that article doesn't exist, Rename there and expand. Radiant! 12:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or otherwise move as per RickK. —RaD Man (talk) 02:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hollywood Knights. Capitalistroadster 09:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hollywood Knights. Shimmin 22:01, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge' Yuckfoo 21:10, 19 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Student's Law Society (LawSoc)

I fail to see how this article could ever become useful, or why it would be of interest to anyone outside the society. Maccoinnich 23:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete LawSocCruft, and ambiguous at that. Chris 02:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Provides no real information. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 06:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on IP's contributions, may be from the University of Edinburgh. Delete as obscure and non-notable. Lacrimosus 07:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, collegiate vanity. Tygar 02:27, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, lack of any meaningful context. Edeans 20:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not enough context. Colin Angus Mackay 00:23, 20 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wet santa

Slang dic def that doesn't seem to be in use. All the google hits I've scanned are for coincidental pairings of the two words, not this usage. Niteowlneils 00:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Eew. Non-notable (thank goodness). --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 06:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if possible. ComCat 08:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speedily please, patent nonsense Jersyko 17:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and allow for organic decay. --GRider\talk 22:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as yet another one of those sick and totally unverifiable "practices" (putting it politely) that rear their ugly heads here every so often. Probably the same, uh, individual responsible for all the others. I'm biting my tongue here, friends, so I'll stop now... - Lucky 6.9 03:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dubious neologism, possible prank article, at least unverifiable. -- Infrogmation 05:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: someone might want to delink this from the even less pleasant Dirty Sanchez. Kappa 11:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No: Someon should expand on it though, because ive seen it done ... hilarious.

  • Sock via 69.76.179.5. User's only edit. Surprise! - Lucky 6.9 06:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete i guess, even tho i helped edit it. Yuckfoo 06:30, 22 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Automatism and the computer

  • Delete Vanity Page Article created by Daniel C.Boyer in Dec.2003 to promote his friend, the surrealist Pierre Petiot the author of, "Surrealism and the Machine", a theoretical essay that is supported only by Boyer and his friends(also vanity mention of another Boyer friend, Richard Genovese). Note: the original reference source is to another friend of Boyer's, J.Karl Bogartte at "Surrealism and the Machine". The article is very misleading on topic that has never been verified outside of the article on Wikipedia! I cannot find any other reference sources outside of Wikipedia on topic, Automatism and the computer that does not have anything to do with Boyer and his friends. Note: Automatism is a valid topic, but I have never seen it referenced with the computer until I came across Wikipedia article, the only reference source on a subject written by friend of Boyer. Advertising and Spam.Classicjupiter2 00:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Classicjupiter2's campaign of trying to get all articles related to surrealism deleted continues. He does not specify why he describes the article as "very misleading". He does not state that he believes that automatism cannot be applied to the computer. What is he even talking about? Classicjupiter2, do you know that Matta was working with the computer shortly before his death? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Surrealist automatism. I have no problem believing that people doing automatic writing use computers. But there's no reason it needs its own article. I don't think this really falls under advertising, spam or vanity. DaveTheRed 02:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge agree with DaveTheRed. Not really advertising or spam in any traditional sense (some of the other surrealist stuff recently on VfD is, though) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested above, preferably without the reference to Mr. Petiot. This isn't advertising, per se, but it doesn't belong in its own article, either. Android79 04:39, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • The Merge vote appears to be the most appropriate from the feedback on here. I would approve of a merge as long as there is no mention of Petiot, but we need to see more references on this topic. Does anyone know of any books, publications, etc., that mention this topic of Automatism and the computer? Though there exists a very large amount of material on Automatism itself, I am still looking for material on its use with the computer.Classicjupiter2 05:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why (other than your dislike of him), do you think there should be no mention of Petiot? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't forget, if you change your vote in the course of the VfD, you have to delete (strikethrough) the old vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the article (or the comprehensible, genuinely informative bits of it) to Surrealist automatism, for the reasons given above. -- Hoary 07:40, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Merge conservatively to Surrealist automatism. Postdlf 17:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - real technique; I've used it myself. I think that Brian Eno's book "A year with swollen appendices" may mention it - he uses similar techniques in his music, largely using Koan software. Grutness|hello? 10:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge could be merged with Automatism. --sparkit 19:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. ~leif ☺ HELO 22:28, Mar 21, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Punnakkattu Daniel

Vanity, as it looks to me. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 00:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems like an important person in Indian football. Cnwb 03:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, smells of self-promotion/vanity. Android79 04:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity, as editor of a website. delete. Radiant! 11:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Radiant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian poetry

Seems to be several of some persons poems. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 00:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn, new version is much more appropate, Keep. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, original unencyclopedic "creation." Demi T/C 01:37, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Keep but Rewrite completely. The current article is crap, but the topic of christian poetry is encyclopedic. DaveTheRed 01:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that the topic could probably have a fine article, but if we kept it now it would still have the current contents in history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; either a copyvio or original prayers; then add to Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- Smerdis of Tlön 05:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep article in current form. Kappa replaced it with a valid stub, and I've tried to expand it with a bit of historical material, difficult for such a vast topic. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually DaveTheRed got the ball rolling. Kappa 18:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. If not a copyvio, an invalid use of encyclopedia space. If you want an article with this title, go ahead and create it now. RickK 05:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, done. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Christian poetry could fit in one of those small communion cups. Any addition help is more than welcome. DaveTheRed 09:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 10:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm I wonder if Megan is voting on the new article or the old, deleted one. Better vote Keep anyway. Kappa 12:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • An article would be nice, but a stub stating the obvious (that Christian poetry is poetry with a Christian theme) is not, and neither is a list of Christian poets considering the ubiquity of Christan mythology in pre-contemporary European/American art. Delete. Radiant! 13:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I wish deletionist would play fair sometimes. You want to add in 3 delete votes for a now completely non-existent article? If you watch carefully you might see how a mere list can become the basis for a very useful and interesting article. Kappa 18:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't quite follow you. What is unfair here? Did you see me voting three times for this article? Sorry but I really don't get it. I hold that the topic even as rewritten is unencyclopedic, hence my vote. As it stands it is turning into a 'list of poets who use reference to Christain mythology' which is not informative since that applies to almost every western poet. Radiant! 08:25, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - If I understand deletion policy correctly, then the new article is not up for deletion right now. The old VfD was resolved when it was speedy deleted. This new article is a start from scratch, and has no relation to the old article, or its VfD. If for some reason you feel that the new article should be deleted, you need to renominate it as a new article. DaveTheRed 19:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. RickK 21:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • So Christian poetry is "any poetry that contains Christian teachings, themes, or references." Hudathunk? Delete Denni☯ 00:58, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
  • Keep the new article. It needs work, but it's clearly encyclopedic. --Angr 06:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Mustafaa 06:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The new article is a good start thanks to DavetheRed and Kappa. Capitalistroadster 09:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly now a good start. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As re-written, a good stub. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic if rewritten. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:51, 20 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel T. Grant

yet another vanity, methinks. 26 google hits, most of which are other Daniel T. Grants. Grutness|hello? 01:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 03:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this "well known campus legend." Despite an impressive curriculum vitae, Our Mister Grant neglected to read the "please don't write about yourself" notice. He also added himself to the "Births" section of May 20. Naughty, Dan! - Lucky 6.9 05:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn vanicruft. ComCat 08:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, student politicians are not notable. Yet. Alphax τεχ 23:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Tygar 02:27, 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 05:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current DNC Members

Didn't know we were a phone book or member directory. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and fast. I imagine these people might object to having their addresses listed. Chris 02:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy agree with the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. RickK 05:53, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D2K Enthusiasts

A yahoo! user group, seems to be be a bit advertish, i question it's relevance in wikipedia. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete SYSS Mouse 03:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Cnwb 03:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of being any more notable than any other Yahoo! group. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We prima facia deal with Oracle Database and Oracle Forms and Oracle Reports. Gently delete, vanity ad. Mgm|(talk) 08:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sniperclan

This is a vanity/self-promotion page about a subject way too minor to be worth inclusion. Recommend it goes. Ebonmuse 02:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete gaming clans. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. Cnwb 03:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. - Mailer Diablo 03:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete...while soldat is a pretty cool game, this article is squad vanity. Try a webhosting site instead ;). Tygar 02:28, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palagummi

Vanity Cnwb 03:18, 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transport Empire

As the person in charge of this project, I probably shouldn't be taking any part in any debate about this. However, I do know the state of my own project, and it's certainly not advanced far enough to get into WP. Maybe when it's further down the line, but certainly not right now. Chris 03:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete if the lead program author doesn't think it's (yet) notable, I'd venture that he's probably right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace of nominator. Simple. Alphax τεχ 23:42, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Note I don't particularly want it, so read any "Move to userspace" votes as "Delete", since that's what I'd do if I get it. Chris 07:10, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TT-Forums

Web community of 2000 members and 200,000 posts, of which I am a member. Next to some of the other things on WP, I'm not altogether sure we've done anything noteworthy enough to get into WP. Chris 03:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, self-promotion--nixie 03:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough in my opinon. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, small forums are not notable. DaveTheRed 05:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In comparison to forums on other games, this one is tiny. Xezbeth 06:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Xezbeth. Radiant! 11:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 2000 members isn't really a lot for an online forum. If kept, would set a nasty precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Radiant! Tygar 02:29, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Tygar. jni 10:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • They have an extlink from the Transport Tycoon page, which seems like enough. Delete. Shimmin 18:57, Mar 17, 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) 00:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ballarat Cricket Association

Local sports organizations are not sufficiently notable for wikipedia entries, delete--nixie 03:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, upon reflection, local sports organizations are important enough for inclusion and necessary to coverage of amateur and children's sport in their area. Yes, I know there are a lot of them. Could be merged with Local sports in Ballarat if such an article appeared. Kappa 04:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Local sporting organizations are notable. Particularly so ones in major towns like this. --Centauri 07:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn cricketcruft. ComCat 08:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, local organizations are not inherrently notable, although I might be willing to change my vote if someone could show that they were either sufficiently large or operated outside of the Ballarat area. DaveTheRed 08:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Local sporting organizations are notable. Particularly so ones in major towns like this. Add to that the fact that Ballarat is right at the heart of one of the world's major cricketing centres. The BCA is big enough to have hosted international matches (Ballarat played against the touring England team in 1933 - possibly the most infamous cricket tour of all time). Ballarat has hosted full international matches as recently as the 1990s. We're not talking just some small village sports team here... Grutness|hello? 10:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There have been many country towns that have hosted international touring matches, however the overseas sides that play these matches are usually not the first XI and the matches are not regarded as Test standard (England sides that play these matches are often always called MCC rather than England to denote that fact). Ballarat has never hosted a Test match. I'm looking at a map of Victoria and I dont understand your comment that Ballarat is "at the heart of one of the world's major cricketing centres" - if it was Ballarat it would standing in the middle of the MCG or SCG and that is physically impossible. Megan1967 10:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, England touring teams are now denoted England XI, to note the fact that it isn't a Test. Smoddy (tgec) 19:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I never said it was a test - I said a full international match. England vs Sri Lanka, ODI, March 9, 1992, Ballarat CA Ground, Ballarat. It was one of the matches at the 1992 World Cup. At least four full international players have started their careers at Ballarat, too. Grutness|hello? 06:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Megan. Also, nearly every minor village has at least one sport organization. That doesn't make them notable. Radiant! 11:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since every minor village has an article, what are we going to say about them if we can't talk about their sport organizations? Kappa 12:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Since there isn't anything interesting to say about the average sport organization, a brief mention in the article on the village itself would suffice. Think of how different your local hockey club might be from my local hockey club - chances are it isn't. Radiant! 13:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think the chances are that it is. Different date of foundation, different number of members, different frequency of play, different level of success, different age ranges, different male/female ratio, different facilities, different local rivals, different amount of training, different involvement with other local institutions... Kappa 18:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • The question is, why does every minor village have to have an article? Unless there is some historical notability for the village, do we need an article for every one of them? Megan1967 04:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Ballarat is not a minor village. It is the second-largest city in the state of Victoria - a "village" of 90,000 people. And cricket is the major sport of the area.The equivalent in the UK, for instance, would be a sports club of the stature of, say, Leicester City football club. In the US, the equivalent might be whatever the basketball team in a city like Reno or Provo might be. Grutness|hello?
          • Third largest, unless Geelong just fell into Corio Bay. ;) Ambi 06:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - agree with reasons given above, jguk 12:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could this not be merged with the Ballarat page? Meelar (talk) 16:48, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • It could, but it wouldn't fit very well IMO. Kappa 00:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Change vote to keep, Grutness has convinced me. Minor confusion over use of "Association"; I wasn't familiar with the usage. Meelar (talk) 22:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, merging doesn't seem suitable or appropriate. —RaD Man (talk) 02:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Ballarat Cricket Association has hosted international cricket matches since Plum Warner took a team there in 1902-03. The England team went there at the height of Bodyline and there was controversy about remarks made during the luncheon. I have added this to the article and will add stuff about the one day international. Capitalistroadster 09:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Now added more info about the world cup match and Ballarat hosting a match in the first tour by an English team to Australia in 1862 as well as the 1992 match. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep. Not entirely certain on this one. Alphax τεχ 09:25, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local sports organization seem to be on the same level as secondary schools: not notable merely through their existence. Regional sports organizations make the cut in my mind, but not local kids' leagues. Shimmin 22:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've you'd taken the trouble to read as far as the end of the first sentence you would realise it is not just a children's league. Wincoote 13:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you trying to destroy VFD ?!?!?!?!!!!!!!one! - David Gerard 23:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or merge with Ballarat. For local ones I would say delete, but this one serves the whole of Greater Ballarat, about 80,000 people. This is more a regional organisation. --bainer 05:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks notable in its realm, after about a century and a half. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Snobbish anti-sport nomination, but it is established that Wikipedia covers sport in detail, not just the likes of physics and philisophy so all this sort of nomination does is create ill feeling and waste many users' time which might otherwise have been used to improve articles. Wincoote 13:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I despise cricket. Keep - David Gerard 23:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cricket hurts my brain. But even I have to admit this lot is notable. Keep. Edeans 02:30, 19 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 userfy, i.e. move to User:Orudge. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Rudge

Vanity. User page redirects here. Not really done anything WP-worthy. Disclosure: I have had good dealings with this individual. Chris 04:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfy, self-promotion as it stands--nixie 04:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 10:19 Z
  • Userfy. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 05:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Bodenhamer

Here we go again, vanity! ;) - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as I look at the page zapper. Chris 04:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. -- Hoary 09:15, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete!, its a very notable entry, people need to know about others Scary 9:22, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • I changed my mind, i agree with the above entry and encourage this person to write more on himself. we cant consider such instances as vanity when they are obviously true. honestly, who admits to talking to a can of beans? Horary 9:25, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Keep, obvious vanity. DaveTheRed 20:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this like a bug through the zapper. Mike H 01:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person is obviously very notable. Just kidding. Keep. ugen64 01:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Bodenhamer is not vain, he is a very humble man tucked into the ozark mountains near decaturville missouri. he and his can of beans named jim notoriously vandalize local villas. the adventures of ryan bodenhamer and jim can be purchased for a flat fee of $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. you can contact him by walking out your front door and shouting his name followed by meaningless spanish gibberish and at least 5 obsceneties in random order. also you must have a can of beans in memory of jims fallen spirit. by the way jim died. if you have tried to contact him please log under this that you have.

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 edit this page edit it like crazy.

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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Austin scarlett

A self-promotional copyvio, probably by the guy himself or staff. In case he says we can use it with permission, this person is not sufficiently notable for a wikipedia article and should be deleted regardless--nixie 04:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: this page has been deleted after listing on [Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. --Duk 00:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Here's a link to the version without copyvio/vfd tags so people can save a few mouse clicks. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 10:17 Z
  • Poor kid, he went to Hollywood and didn't become a star. Delete. Radiant_* 09:49, Mar 17, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnegas

Delete. Smells like an advertisement, although it'd be a strange way to do it. Article merely states trademark information about this product, complete with ™s. Gets 1680 Google hits. Android79 04:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Doesn't google. Also the article is very non-encyclopedic. Delete. Radiant_* 09:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless much improved, nothing here worth keeping, if it's encyclopedic let someone start over. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • STAY! This article is referring to a known and respected science called Hadron science. Read more at [[1]]. (Unsigned vote by 129.241.29.112; user's only edit to date.)
    • No, it's referring to a couple of trademarks on the names of a couple of fuels. Add some more context and how it relates to "Hadron science" if you want to change my vote. Chances are slim, however. android↔talk 05:34, Mar 21, 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 Muertos incómodos. —Korath (Talk) 00:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muertos Incomodos

No vote for now. Article is a one-line (not even a complete sentence) description of an apparently Web-published book. My Spanish is rusty at best, so any help in verifying the notability of this book would be appreciated. Android79 04:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • The book itself doesn't score much in the way of notoriety, lacking any kind of critical review, and it seems to be more a novella published in a Mexican periodical than a book. One of the authors is a figure of relative notoriety and importance however, so perhaps a Redirect or a Merge with Subcomandante Marcos is in order. Arkyan 07:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just noticed an article with slightly more comment at Muertos_inc�modos. Whether or not that stub is worth hanging on to or listing on VfD I'm not entirely sure, but if nothing else this article needs redirected there. Being relatively new I'm hesitant to step on the VfD and redirect it now, but I did want to point out the alternate article.
    • And being relatively new I forgot to sign the above. Arkyan 07:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Arkyan. And muertos incómodos means uncomfortable deaths in Spanish. DaveTheRed 08:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 09:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes another comment. I did some research on the subject and expanded the article at Muertos_inc�modos. Seems it did generate some interest in Mexico, and I think it is more than worthy of keeping, as long as we redirect this rather pointless stub to the more comprehensive entry. Oh, and muertos incómodos does mean uncomfortable dead; uncomfortable deaths would be muertes incómodas. Arkyan 20:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This substub would be no great loss. Seems to have potential, though, weak keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Muertos incómodos, which is now 3 good paragraphs and 2 ExtLks. And both authors are important figures in the country of origin: see es:Paco Ignacio Taibo II and/or search for "clinton" on here. No doubt an English xlation of the novel(lla) will be along shortly. –Hajor 06:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as present redirect - David Gerard 23:01, 18 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Gowans

Guitarist in a band yet to relase and album, vanity--nixie 04:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 07:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable, likely vanity. -- Infrogmation 05:08, 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 delete. Cannot be delted due to block-compression revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salmonbones Marketing

Delete. Advertisement for a website claiming to be a Google competitor. Android79 04:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 10:14 Z
  • Delete. -- Infrogmation 05:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, advertising. Jonathunder 04:57, 2005 Mar 22 (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 - should have something done, but needed changes don't require vfd - SimonP 04:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Awties

Incomplete nomination from the 9th of March. Appears to be a neologism of no consequence--nixie 05:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • This discussion, of what the name is for the decade from '00 to '09 is, came up at the start of the 20th century and again at the start of the 21st. Various words ("aughties", "noughties", "oughties", "oh-ties", and even "naughties") were suggested. If this is a neologism, it's one that's over 100 years old at this point, making it only the second oldest such "neologism" that I've encountered this week. ☺ The article title is of course the phonetic spelling of "oughties" by someone who has obviously never seen the word written down. ☺ The discussion of the difficulty in coming up for an equivalent of "the sixties" and the various words propounded is of course a quite proper topic for an encyclopaedia article, and one that I think to be encyclopaedia-worthy. The difficulty is, of course: What does one call the article? Keep, Rename to names for 00-09 decades, then Merge the naming section of 2000s to here. For decoration and flavour, add redirects for all of the other common names to names for 00-09 decades. Uncle G 16:22, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • I haven't heard this referred to as "Awties" before, but I have seen references to the "Oughts". Probably needs work, as Uncle G suggests, but should be kept or redirected. Edeans 20:23, 18 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhollings and Dan Hollings

Blatent vanity by user of the same screen name, is the same page as user space page. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Exact duplicate of User:Dhollings. No need to Userfy. So Delete. Uncle G 11:43, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, as Uncle G said. DaveTheRed 20:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE--ZayZayEM 07:28, 23 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. Cannot be deleted due to block-compression revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brentsearch

  • Dele. Amusing joke, though. Mikkalai 07:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • delete Shameless prmom --Boothy443 04:26, 31 Dec 2004 (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 --Carnildo 05:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anung waskito

Vanity. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 06:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn vanicruft. ComCat 08:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, delete, but shouldn't it just have been speedied? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy delete author has edited asking for deletion and apologising. --Audiovideo 14:28, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mala Influencia

This is a band with no releases, and no other evidence that it's encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 06:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable (yet), band vanity. Note: User:200.77.193.150 has apparently removed the VfD. Megan1967 09:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bands require more than one groupie for notability. Google results seem to indicate that eating too much grass fat has a bad influence on one's memory Kappa 11:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a rare example of clear cut band vanity. --GRider\talk 18:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "[A] rare example of clear cut band vanity"? Too damned common, if you ask me. Delete. Edeans 20:31, 18 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Living With Style

Obvious advertisement. The site may qualify as notable (it has an Alexa rank, in the mid 50,000s), but this article is obviously an ad for the message board. --Kelly Martin 07:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • I fail to see how this is different from thousands of other webgames. 6700 googles, many of which unrelated. Delete as web-non-phenomenon. Radiant_* 09:44, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this webcruft. Edeans 20:35, 18 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barebone

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
Portuguese, stub. Sietse 15:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

looks computer related; looks like a dicdef. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
yes, it's a definition of a barebones computer system, ie case, psu and motherboard but nothing else. That's about it. Redlentil 17:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<end moved text>

  • I wouldn't necessarily object to a rescue, but this Portuguese language dicdef is worse than nothing. Besides, even if we want it, it probably belongs at Bare bones system. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:38, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 09:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only is it a dicdef, and in the wrong language, but the term is self-explanatory. BigFatDave 09:25, 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 05:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bret branon

Probably vanity, should at least be moved to the user page. Delete. Sjakkalle 07:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Fuzheado | Talk 10:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If User:Moolieboy had made any other contributions at all, I'd have voted Userfy. But xe hasn't. Delete. Uncle G 11:35, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Someone seems to have speedied this one... Sjakkalle 12:17, 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 delete. Cannot be deleted due to block-compression revisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antiba

British band, yet to realse and album. Self-promotopn, delete--nixie 08:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible band vanity. Megan1967 09:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, The Son of the Revenge of the Return of the Garage Band Gremlin. Edeans 20:41, 18 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 --Carnildo 05:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond E. Murphy

Transwiki to the memorial wiki. RickK 08:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Rick, what would You suggest? Rick Wilson

Wikipedia has a sister project for memorials to 9/11 victims at http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, RickK 09:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
He just did suggest. Move it to the September 11 Memorial wiki article, already existant. --John Owens (talk) 09:06, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
Which, upon further examination, I see you created yourself, a few minutes before creating the article here. All the same content is already there, so I suppose no transwiki-ing as such is really necessary. --John Owens (talk) 09:09, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Now blanked by creator. If it's already at the 911 wiki, I'm happy to delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Blanked by creator, thus speediable. Delete. Radiant! 11:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blank article. Megan1967 07:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied - David Gerard 23:04, 18 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 - SimonP 05:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Curatolo

A firefighter who died in NYC on 11 Sep 2001. Tragic, but not encyclopedic. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Raymond E. Murphy for a parallel case. -- Hoary 09:10, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Sep 11 memorial project. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, tragic but not a notable individual. Megan1967 07:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • With sadness, I vote to transwiki to Sep 11 memorial project. Edeans 20:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It was a very tragic waste of a life. transwiki to Sept 11 memorial project. Colin Angus Mackay 00:36, 20 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Bosma

Vanity. Non-notable. RickK 09:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 10:13 Z
  • Delete, not notable, vanity (and a personal attack in the end section). Megan1967 10:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. Fuzheado | Talk 10:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 10:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 23:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not made in vanity, possibly not made by him at all. Very well known in the Melbourne music community. Awesome person, and partly responsible for helping restore live music after political changes. These votes have been made by people who don't live in Melbourne, and don't understand that this guy does alot. Very Worthy of a Wikipedia entry
http://www.jackknife.live.com.au/

  • Above post by User:138.217.54.166. RickK 09:16, Mar 20, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cristina Romagnoli

Cute vanity, but Wikipedia is not the place to apologise for not calling your sister! Grutness|hello? 10:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 10:13 Z
  • Delete. Notability not there. jni 10:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not even remotely notable. Edeans 20:48, 18 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 - no consensus - SimonP 05:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of bands with names consisting entirely of integers

Too idiosyncratic to be encyclopedic. Matt Gabriel

  • Delete, unnecessary duplicate list. Megan1967 10:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting, verifiable. Kappa 11:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as arbitrary subset of Category:Bands (can be looked up from there if wanted). Radiant! 13:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we want List of bands with names that are five letters long or List of bands with names that are palindromes. DaveTheRed 19:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do we have List of bands with numbers in the title? If not, move article here and update accordingly, else merge. Since we have List of songs with numbers in the title there should be a similar list for bands. Grue 20:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting list worthy of note. --GRider\talk 22:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Arbitrary, trivial. If it were a really good list I might be swayed, but it isn't.
  • Weak delete. Fairly pointless esoteric data. -Sean Curtin 06:18, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with grue - move to new, less idiosyncratic page. Grutness|hello? 09:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbitrary list. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless cubed. Edeans 20:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, move maybE? Yuckfoo 21:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, needs expansion. - SimonP 05:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Waves Of Destruction... Waves of Compassion...

Sorry, I could not make anything out of this..... - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a report on a church event and art exhibition. Extremely not encyclopedic. Delete. Radiant! 11:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Even thought articles about events and exhbitions can be encyclopedic, reports about them certainly aren't. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This newspaper article, complete with dateline and byline, could have been an article in the newspaper at Wikinews:Pilar Pre-Novices organize Art exhibition in aid of tsunami relief (and indeed still can be if Inacio A. Fernandes goes there and submits it). It's not an article for the encyclopaedia, however. Delete. Uncle G 15:30, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WTH? Delete. Edeans 21:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Gudeldar 21:12, 18 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 - no consensus - SimonP 05:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cry of the afflicted

Promotional band vanity. Little actual content with full of links. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have completely rewritten this article. --Theo (Talk) 13:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. They've only released a single and an EP, no mention of what label they're on. Could their releases be on vanity labels? RickK 20:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, "Cry of the afflicted" is a more appropriate moniker for those who read this article (think before you submit these things). Edeans 20:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to have been much improved - SimonP 05:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 05:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sesame Street characters by last known appearance

Delete This is ridiculous.

Delete Page is not close to complete, it doesn't add value, it can easily be absorbed into other Sesame Street pages. And so on. Ringbark 09:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Just pause the vote for a week, please, so can rally the Muppet community to help. This page isn't as worthless as it may seem. Most posts by newbie of Muppet posting boards is "when did they get rid of..." So, if there's this many people willing to join boards, post their queries, and wait for answers, there could be millions more than would like to have these questions answered in a snap. Yes, the information on this page is covered in each character's bio, but it provide a condensed resource for most people, who wouldn't want to hop, skip, and jump around Wikipedia for answers. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep. There is not any reason to delete this; it's level of completeness is not a reason to delete and it is very relevant to the base of fans for Sesame Street and related shows. Unlike some other lists it can be complete as the list is finite. Courtland 17:24, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • I have moved this to today's vfd page, as it had not previously been listed on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 11:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems useful to me. --Theo (Talk) 11:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and rally the muppet community to help. Sounds useful per zanimum. Kappa 11:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to something less bulky like Former Sesame Street characters. And make it an article rather than a list. Other than that, keep. Radiant! 11:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a general information base. We have an article List of Sesame Street characters, which lists them alphabetically. This is exactly the same list, with the addition of one item of data (date of last appearance), and a different sort. How many different sorts of the same basic data are we going to have? Each separately, and manually maintained, and therefore out of sync. How about: by date of first appearance, by number of appearances, by total length in minutes of appearances, by color, by height, by name of voice actor who played them, etc, etc. It is stupid. If somebody wants to create an online database of muppets and their appearances, and let people query it in all manner of wondrous ways, he can do it. He can even put a link to it in the appropriate Wikipedia articles. But Wikipedia isn't that database. --BM 13:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with BM. Add the data to List of Sesame Street characters, not here. —Korath (Talk) 13:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with BM. Merge the data to List of Sesame Street characters. Zzyzx11 14:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I will take zanimum at their word that they will expand this article into something workable. Admins, feel free to ignore my vote or count it as delete if article is not expanded well beyond 2 characters by the close of this VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Sesame Street characters if there are more than two entries at the close of this VfD, otherwise just delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Sesame Street characters. Concur with BM. DaveTheRed 19:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful, if any such thing exists, into List of Sesame Street characters. Though I did laugh at [j]ust pause the vote for a week...so [I] can rally the Muppet community to help. Made me think that a frenzied crowd of Muppets (led by Animal, of course) would soon be converging on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Posted after major revision.

  • Merge with List of Sesame Street characters. Megan1967 05:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect; this is the sort of information that people are going to be naturally curious about. -Sean Curtin 06:19, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless at worst, appears useful to some folks. Merging just makes the target article muddier. Jgm 15:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As much as I hate to quote John Wilkes Booth: "Useless, useless." Edeans 21:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is why we have list articles. Snowspinner 16:19, Mar 20, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exlow

Platform for an external link. —Korath (Talk) 12:32, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 05:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • [Cue the Vikings]: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam ... Delete Edeans 21:12, 18 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 --Carnildo 05:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paula brown

Vanity. —Korath (Talk) 12:45, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not about well-known person. Kappa 14:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I deleted it' - obvious vandalism/joke/trash. Not worth taking up space for a week. - DavidWBrooks 15:30, 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Siamés: Comunicación surrealista - Imaginario crítico.

Delete one sentence substub on surrealist periodical. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cantabria Surrealist Group—as that goes, so should this. No evidence of notability for the Group, none for their periodical either. Postdlf 12:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems even less notable than Cantabria Surrealist Group, but if the consensus on VFD for that article is to keep it, redirecting this one to there is okay by me. -- Infrogmation 16:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • YMS--Yet More Surrealcruft. Delete. Edeans 21:16, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noggle Stones

Advertisement for a book published by iUniverse, a vanity press. —Korath (Talk) 12:54, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It appears to be a successful book, despite it's origins. Amazon.com editorial reviews are very positive, and it's being adapted into a comic [2] Kappa 14:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its Amazon sales rank is 1,058,237. Article created by anonymous IP who also gave us an article on the book's author at Wil Radcliffe. Looks like vanity and advertisement; the article is one sentence and a referral link to Amazon. "noggle stones" gets 107 unique Google hits. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I put the referral link there, I always do that with books. If by 'referral link' you mean one which gets paid per click, it isn't. Kappa 18:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • My bad; I have amended my remark. Still doesn't seem notable, though if Wil Radcliffe survives VfD any reference to the book could go in his very sparse article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete any book published by a vanity press unless there is something else to make it notable. RickK 20:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 05:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, delete until the comic actually exists. Radiant_* 13:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • If it was published by a vanity press then delete. 107 is very few google hits for a book that's alledgedly so successful, and that's a pretty poor sales rank to boot. -R. fiend 16:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As near as anyone outside Amazon can figure, a sales rank of 1 million is selling less than one book per week. It seems likely that this book has sold 100 copies, as a very broad but generous estimate. Delete. Shimmin 22:22, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this promotion. Edeans 21:19, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creganna

Advertising. Inter\Echo 12:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 12:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. Radiant_* 09:44, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad; salvage job might be welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline delete with no extra sources. I'm not sure any of this is worth keeping - David Gerard 23:08, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 05:13, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basil Yacoub

Vanity. —Korath (Talk) 13:02, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, seems more like teasing than vanity "He was rejected from being a choir boy because of his inability to hit any high notes, and has been scarred ever since". Kappa 14:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poor Basil. First he's almost stabbed to death by his biology class (all girls), and then we delete his article. DaveTheRed 19:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks it was written as a practical joke on Basil. Zzyzx11 20:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible personal attack. Megan1967 05:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This wasn't a practical joke, or a personal attack, it was written with the OK of basil (by me) and now He's seen it and likes it. Akshell 16:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad it's not a personal attack, but it's still a form of vanity. As such, delete. Radiant_* 09:45, Mar 17, 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 - SimonP 05:13, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuxd

Non-notable misspelling of fucked. Gets 389 unique google hits; about one out of seven are used in this way, and most of the rest are gibberish. Does Wiktionary take ebonicsisms? I hope not. —Korath (Talk) 13:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delexd. Non-notable. Android79 13:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't belong here, and is not widespread enough for wikitionary. If we're going to be super-charitable we could make it a redirect to fuck but even that is questionable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - DavidWBrooks 14:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 05:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • DO Not Delete : Word used commonly in many parts of canada now. Infact replacing the use of fucked. Usually preffered to Fucked. 69.197.237.13 12:34, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) (moved from talk page—Korath (Talk) 16:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete, eh. Edeans 21:24, 18 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 - kept - SimonP 05:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy Bestiary

Final Fantasy? Plenty ok. A separate article for its bestiary? Dubious. Raw stats? No. Might be a copyvio of some game guide or other besides. —Korath (Talk) 14:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Note: 83.116.212.140 (page author) removed the VfD notice from his page. Replaced now.
  • Keep FF main article is already 37k, re-merging the bestiary wouldn't be a good idea. With at least 15 or more unique games already, the series has plenty enough unique creatures to warrant an article. Tonberry, for example, has 23,000 Google hits just on its own. Final Fantasy has 5,640,000 hits, plus many more if we count abbreviations like FFX, FFVII, etc... so the subject is far too extensive and notable to cram into just one 32K article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Those aren't raw stats; they're lists of which creatures appear in which games. Also, this list can't possibly be anywhere near complete; I remember getting a poster with my copy of FF for the NES which listed more monsters for that game alone than what already appear on this list. A well-done list of this sort would probably be interesting to at least a few people, but the problem is creating a complete and non-ugly list. Leaning towards Delete, but no vote for now. Android79 15:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • They aren't stats, but the games in the series in which said creature appears. That said, like many fantasy RPGs, FF contains a wide selection of generic mythological monsters, and as such this list is rather pointless. Weak delete unless changed to an article rather than a list. Radiant! 15:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, obviously. Millions of people are interested in Chocobos for example and would presumably like to know which games they are in. Kappa 18:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful information to FF fans. I do worry that the list will become unwieldy and large, but I suppose we can always break it up into smaller articles if need be. DaveTheRed 19:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to delete. —RaD Man (talk) 02:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. Megan1967 05:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic. Martg76 12:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Yes, a list of which animals appear in which FF games is a nice idea, but the list has to be more complete and better presented. — JIP | Talk 10:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So we should delete every article that isn't complete and prettily formatted? Kappa 12:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No we shouldn't. That's not a general rule. But in the case of this specific article, I think the article should be formatted better. Anyway, I don't think there's anything in the article that would justify its deletion. I'm changing my vote to weak keep. — JIP | Talk 12:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to List of creatures from Final Fantasy or something, remove the numbers or stats or whatever as they're unexplained and insignificant, and get rid of the 1st person intro. -R. fiend 16:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • As explained above, those aren't "raw stats", they are games. Kappa 12:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Whatever they are, they aren't explained. If it is truly important to mention what games they were in then at least explain the information. I'm guessing, however, that it is not truly important. -R. fiend 16:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, main article is too big to merge - David Gerard 23:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and then look to restructure information on common Final Fantasy monsters on a suitable page, such as List of Final Fantasy monsters. Would be a lot more suitable than is. Hedley 03:44, 19 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 --Carnildo 05:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Gilroy

Vanity. —Korath (Talk) 14:40, 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 05:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony DiCicco

Non-serious biography entry. moink 14:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy, patent nonsense. —Korath (Talk) 14:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • baleeted silsor 03:10, 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 05:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sambito

Appears to be a non-serious bio. moink 14:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable vanity. 24 google hits for "Matt Sambito". —Korath (Talk) 14:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as recreation of previously VFD'd Matt Sambito. RickK 20:25, 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 - redirected - SimonP 05:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest Numbers

  • Non-encyclopedic. Also we already have Large numbers. Rmhermen 18:24, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Large numbers. Or speedy delete. Kappa 18:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The number of numbers is infinite, there are no "biggest numbers". -- Curps 19:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Preposterous article that doesn't even cover the subject in its own title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Large numbers; but Delete the content since it is redundant to Names of large numbers. Zzyzx11 21:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the base ten number system is a deliberate raping of children's minds. --SPUI (talk) 22:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap, use them. —RaD Man (talk) 02:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Haha, this article makes me laugh. Delete. Tygar 02:31, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; not a useful redirect. —Korath (Talk) 05:13, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Large numbers. Megan1967 05:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:30, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, that was pretty lame :) delete and replace with redirect, as mentioned above. Radiant! 08:40, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm against a redirect because the title in inherently bad. There are no "biggest numbers", as numbers are infinite. -R. fiend 16:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The biggest number known is 45 billion, though mathematicians suspect that there may be even bigger numbers. (caption reads "45,000,000,001?" - Look Around You: Maths) A biggest delete - against redirect per above. Chris 22:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete to the trigooglequadrabillionth power for absolute uselessness. Edeans 21:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect or keep Yuckfoo 21:11, 19 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 --Carnildo 05:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Matt

High-school student vanity. —Korath (Talk) 15:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence whatsoever that he has achieved anything beyond the normal high school student. Average Earthman 16:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • baleeted silsor 03:10, 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest paintings

Inherently POV, no chance of improvement. Smoddy (tgec) 17:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I disagree that this is inherently POV... we have very good well-referenced articles dealing with both the greatest and worst movies of all time. On the other hand, the current article is highly questionable. The artist seems to be real (though obscure), but the title of the alleged greatest painting ever doesn't Google at all besides Wikipedia mirrors. I'd say it's a deliberate hoax at worst, sad attempt to promote an obscure artist/painting at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no credible eveidence for the painting in question. Zzyzx11 20:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The artist might be notable, but the painting definitely isn't. Philthecow 21:11, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Likely hoax. Postdlf 23:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 05:22, 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 - should be merged - SimonP 05:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sacean Plains

The birthplace of characters of a game sequel... - BanyanTree 18:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge if we have an article on locations from that series. This is a pretty good example of a notability issue... it's accurate, and verifiable, but just not important enough (even within the context of Fire Emblem) to merit an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose we should merge to Fire Emblem, even though that article is already 42kb long. Someone really should shorten it. DaveTheRed 23:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • When an article gets too big, the best thing to do is divide it. Kappa 00:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since Fire Emblem is too big to merge. Kappa 00:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - if this trivia hasn't come up in the 42Kb already written about this videogame, it really isn't notable enough for its own article. CDC (talk) 03:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 05:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A huge article on the game, and they couldn't bother mentioning that there? Doesn't suggest that this is of much importance to the game. Average Earthman 09:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fire Emblem, even if it's not mentioned there, it might be sometime in the future. Shimmin 22:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Does not seem to be important enough for its own article, however, perhaps this information should be in the main article. If this article keeps growing, possibly move most of the info here to Wikibooks? Y0u 02:46, Mar 25, 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) 00:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separation of style and content

Delete That's exactly why there is CSS. I believe most of the content is already cover in the CSS article. --Minghong 18:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, I don't believe Cascading Style Sheets are the only example of separation of style and content. Kappa 19:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kappa's right, it is possible to separate style and content without using CSS. This article should be expanded to deal with the subject more generally. DaveTheRed 23:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a great introductory article on the separation of style and content, which is surprisingly hard to find on the web. It's especially helpful for people from a non-IT background, such as recordkeepers and information managers, which is my intented audience and research area. --Ness79 04:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If this can't be merged with something, it should be deleted. Edeans 03:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to semantic markup and expand to describe LaTeX as well. grendel|khan 06:20, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. (I created this article, and I agree it needs some cleanup (especially the large portion of it that came from 4.x)) ~leif ☺ HELO 21:04, Mar 19, 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) 00:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bouncing stones

Encyclopedically notable or unreferenced, unverifiable nonsense? Which is it? --GRider\talk 19:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep seems verifiable to me. Interesting bit of true Australian lore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Bouncing stones. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 20:45 Z
  • Keep not sure if they are the same thing, but some 'bouncing stones' appear to be sacred [3]. Kappa 00:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. Stones which possess the ability to bounce are inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic. —RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I have cleaned this up noting that the beach is an Aboriginal sacred site in the Daintree National Park in Far North Queensland and providing some sources. Capitalistroadster 10:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 02:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 21:12, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Paul Gallagher

Apparent vanity - nothing in the article suggests notability. 9 Google hits. --[[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412] 19:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete CDC (talk) 03:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Edeans 21:38, 18 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alphori

Either non-notable or totally obscure. Of the 8 distnct hits returned by Google for this term, half of them refer to a private company, "Alphori Technologies". Also suspicious: all other edits by this IP have been copyvio or nonsense edits [4]. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, this article cannot be verified.--nixie 22:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable with zero relevant google hits. Even if true, it would at most merit a mention at Betelgeuse. (Not to mention the completely irrelevant external link promo I just removed.) —Korath (Talk) 22:42, Mar 20, 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 - SimonP 05:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boanthropy

As another user also pointed out on the talk page, I can't find any reputable online references for this on google. Delete as a made-up word unless somebody can find a good reference. Thue | talk 20:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: is Calvary.com not reputable? [5] The link also give other references, and is the #1 google hit. Kappa 23:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I doubt it; it contains the text "There have been documented cases where the sufferer has grown horns"... Thue | talk 00:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (Weak) Delete; it's an obvious made-up compound after the model of lycanthropy; we might as well have cameleopardanthropy, where you fancy yourself a giraffe. Unless more evidence of notability is forthcoming, get rid of it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Gets exactly four hits on Google, all of which are on evangelical websites. Mooooooooooooooooooooo! Delete. Edeans 21:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Seems more like 3,630 hits to me [6]
  • Delete. Non-notable... --Neigel von Teighen 21:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, delusions suffered by major Babylonian kings are notable. Kappa 15:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there any reliable sources who actually use this word when describing his condition? And are there any reliable sources sources who say he thought he was a bovine? The wikipedia article on Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon doesn't, for one. Thue | talk 16:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more references can be provided - SimonP 05:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 05:25, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan estrada

Delete Vanity, participation in 24 hour webcomic event doesn't seem to make notability. --InShaneee 21:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- no evidence of being any more notable than any other webcomic artist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Ryan Estrada was the first (and to my knowledge only one) to do a 48 and 72 hour comic. He started the idea of extending the time of the 24 hour comic but still making it a good read. I wrote the article and do not personally know the guy. I understand I'm allowed to vote(?) In any case, I consider the fact that he expanded upon the 24-hour comics idea to be the reason for notablity. With a 168 hour comic looming in the distance, I honestly don't understand how you can say this isn't notable. -- 217.43.239.251 01:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Webcomic artist. anthony 警告 02:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 498 Google hits for "ryan estrada", and of course not all of which can be assumed to point to this particular Ryan Estrada. I don't see how extending the time period of someone else's idea makes someone particularly notable. In any case, if this article is kept, it needs to be edited for POV -- it sounds like Ryan himself or someone very close to him wrote the article. Android79 02:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am just a fan, through his website (don't know him personally, no). [edit: Anyway, I tried to edit it a bit further. Any better?] I maybe agree that extending the idea of the 24 hour comic to 48 hours or even 72 hours may not have been enough in itself to merit a place in an online encyclopedia. However, extending it to such crazy degrees - 168 pages to be drawn in 168 consecutive hours - does seem worthy of note to anyone interested in comics. The reason I am aware of his adventures is simply because of his website. Who knows what even crazier limits will be reached? He is the person that started this extension and this extension of the 24-hour comic has the potential to develop into something altogether different.217.43.239.201 21:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) 217.43.239.201 (talk • contribs)'s only edits are to the article and this VfD.
  • Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If by 'vanity' you mean it may have been himself writing, then no. I made the original essay and (I think) all edits so far. I honestly believe that once he has done his 168-hour comic, he will be of interest to some, specially as it looks likely to be extended a fair bit further yet.217.43.239.201 00:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • So, after he does this 168-hour-comic thing, he may be of interest to some people. In other words, he's not yet a notable webcomic artist. Maybe an article would be in order if he gets a lot of publicity or critical acclaim from the right places, but right now, it's not there. Android79 00:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Megan, delete. Radiant_* 13:43, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not sufficiently notable (yet). Persuaded by Android79's research. Jonathunder 05:17, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • Keep There's plenty of individuals on Wikipedia that are not exactly world famous; remember Estrada was first mentioned here in an article on the rant website "the Acts of Gord", itself not exactly front page</a> of the Times material. Ryan Estrada is a popular internet cartoonist, and recognized within the boundaries of that community.
Not to hop on a soapbox, but we may want to rethink what we mean by "notable" in this, the age of the internet. When every oddity and guy on the street can present his thoughts, information, and craft to literally every human being with an uncensored internet connection, then even an outwardly oddball or fringe website may well have a considerable influence, and just as importantly for our purposes, a considerable audience. Wikipedia entries on similar subjects, other webcomics for example, are "famous" or "notable" only within thier respective communities, and have received little to no mainstream attention, yet their presence here goes unchallenged. I find it hard to understand why this case is different.
    • Comments by 60.0.71.129. This is his only edit. --InShaneee 04:09, 25 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 --Carnildo 05:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Redman

Vanity. Only one (unrelated) google hit for "Adam Redman" satire. -- Eugene van der Pijll 21:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete. — Timwi 21:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • baleeted silsor 02:47, 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:25, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eli Burgos

Seems to be an soft advert for some persons blog. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, self-promotion. --nixie 23:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:32, 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) 00:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I count two keeps, two redirects to Advogato, and two ambiguous (GRider's and Raph Levien's). Further discussion of a merge should take place at Talk:Raph Levien. —Korath (Talk) 00:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raph Levien

What about this article illustrates encyclopedic notability? --GRider\talk 22:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Raph Levien. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 23:06 Z
  • He is already in the Avagato article, hasn'd done anything esle of note, redirect to Avagato--nixie 23:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap, use them. —RaD Man (talk) 02:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The case for the article (Disclaimer: I started this article. Note User:GRider has not been willing to discuss the merits of this article informally)
    • Raph Levien's work worth documenting on WP and which does not fall under the aegis of the Advogato article includes:
      1. His work on trust metrics, especially his idea of attack resitance, which turns out to be an interesting, multiply realised idea;
      2. His work on imaging software, and his leadership role in free software implementations, most notably his stewardship of the free branch of the Adobe Ghostscript software, and his libart implementation;
      3. He's a significant and widely recognised voice in the free software community, which has a lot to do with starting Advogato, but has faces outside Advogato.
    • The article is not encyclopedic at the current time, but it potentially could be, as is appropriate for a stub. If you give me a chance it will grow. ---- Charles Stewart 10:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Charles Stewart 11:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if Charles promises to expand this bio-stub since he knows a lot about the person. Radiant_* 09:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 03:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is proper form or not, but there are a few more accomplishments that may be relevant:
    • In March 2000, I made a patent grant of my patent portfolio to the GPL community. This step was considered by some to be a good example, and may have been precedent for IBM's subsequent patent grant in January 2005.
    • I have not only written a number of papers on innovations in halftoning technology, but the algorithms are used in Gimp-Print, as well as by several commercial customers.
    • I did a significant amount of early work on the anonymous remailer network, including writing an early client (premail) and developing the first automated statistics-gathering tool.
    • I submitted a Commodities Jurisdiction Request for the "RSA in 4 lines of perl" t-shirt, which played a small but notable part in the ultimately successful effort to relax crypto export regulations.
    • I am at present the only other significant contributor of theorems to Metamath aside from its original author. Metamath is considered one of the Seventeen Provers of the World.

There is a fair amount of ongoing work which is not yet encyclopedic (including my current PhD research on splines, my design work on a next-generation Metamath, and some font designs in the queue, but my hope is that as this work progresses it will justify the continuing evolution of a wikipedia page. --Raph Levien 06:58, 20 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 - no consensus - SimonP 05:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global Vision

Advertismnet- sefl-promotion for a non-notable organization --nixie 22:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Pretty good-looking website, but you're right in that the article looks like an ad. Might be a copyvio, but Google comes up nil. Keep and give it a major cleanup and POV-ectomy. - Lucky 6.9 22:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Suspicious-looking dead-end to me. Delete. Edeans 22:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-promotion. —Korath (Talk) 00:47, Mar 21, 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 - merged and redirected - SimonP 05:30, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applicability Statement 1, Applicability Statement 2 and Applicability Statement 3

Appears to be some technical jargon with no potential to become encyclopedic, also may sevre as an ad for the externally linked site.--nixie 22:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The "externally linked site" is now the non-commercial IETF website, for all three pages. Whilst dry, the material in these articles is potentially very encyclopedia-worthy, as it relates to Web services and EDI. Keep. -- The Anome
    • Perhaps some kind person will put these in some kind of context so they don't look like jargon and merge them into one article--nixie 23:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep. If it's boring, it's probaby encyclopedic. Kappa 23:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Kill. The names are horrible, Applicability Statements 2 and 3 are still in the draft stage (that is, unfinished proposals), [7], and for Applicability Statement 1, well, RFC 3335 is something that might be mentioned in EDI in a list of relevant standards -- but the existing article doesn't even describe it clearly, so it's not especially useful as a merge. --iMb~Mw 04:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The relevant information is now contained in Electronic Data Interchange. These articles are no longer required. --iMb~Mw 06:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Meowbot. Now we can delete this applic statement. Radiant! 08:39, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Now the useful material is included elsewhere, we should delete these pages. -- The Anome 08:41, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sibyll Trelawney

How is this fictional character notable outside of the Potter series? Is she even notable within the Potter series? In what way is encyclopedic notability being established here? Please discuss. --GRider\talk 22:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Sibyll Trelawney. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 23:07 Z
  • Keep, she is notable outside Potterville because Emma Thompson played her. Kappa 23:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Important character from a very famous book series. More than 100,000+ Google Hits if we search under "Professor Trelawney", "Prof. Trelawney", "Sibyll Trelawney, and "Sybil Trelawney". These nominations are starting to get a little silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep. Are you joking? Sibyll was played by Emma Thompson in the last movie. Surely you've heard of her? DaveTheRed 01:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Comment. I notice Ms Thompson also played Elinor Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility - and there is no article for that character. Average Earthman 09:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No, of course I didn't mean that any character played by Emma Thompson is encyclopedic. I meant that this particular character in Harry Potter was played by a big hollywood actress, and was therefore obviously notable. But you already knew that, didn't you? DaveTheRed 02:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sure you don't mean that every single character played by a major Hollywood star deserves an article - e.g. if someone created an article for the characters played by George Clooney or John Travolta in Thin Red Line, it would be a deserved deletion case. Notable actors, notable film, but clearly not notable characters (since they're just cameos). Your argument is too general. Average Earthman 12:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • My argument was obviously not intended to extend beyond Harry Potter movies. DaveTheRed 18:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT. —Korath (Talk) 05:16, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Xezbeth 05:57, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as one of the few teachers expanded upon in the books. Appears in all Potter books starting from the third, and has major (if subtle) plot influence. Radiant! 08:34, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Likely to be searched for and fairly notable Harry Potter character especially with the predictions. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously; reasons stated above Lectonar 11:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like the Harry Potter universe much more than the Pokémon universe, and Trelawnwey is a major character. She makes two important prophecies, one of which guides the entire Order of Phoenix novel. Not even close for deletion. Sjakkalle 09:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable charecter, who makes important prophecies which are central to the plot. kaal 20:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 03:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Although she is characterised as being flakey, she made an important prediction shortly before Harry's birth which is pivotal to book 5 and JKR has strongly hinted that it will be a part of book 6. Colin Angus Mackay 00:52, 20 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) 00:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alastor Moody

In this example, how is encyclopedic notability being demonstrated? --GRider\talk 22:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Alastor Moody. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 23:08 Z
  • Keep, important recurring character. Merging this kind of thing wouldn't really help anyone. Kappa 23:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Important character from a very famous book series. 131,000 Google Hits as "Mad Eye Moody". Come on, now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP. Major, major character in the Hary Potter series. Are you even bothering to do any research? DaveTheRed 01:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT. —Korath (Talk) 05:16, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Xezbeth 05:56, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as major character. Focus of the main plot in book four, and important in book five. Radiant! 08:34, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mad-Eye Moody is a fairly important character in Books four and five of the Harry Potter . Capitalistroadster 10:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And he's even more notable than Mundungus Fletcher Lectonar 10:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very notable character, usually nicknamed "Mad-Eye Moody". GRider ought to stop his crusade against Harry Potter characters. Sjakkalle 09:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure it's not a crusade, don't worry. Radiant_* 09:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. None of this "extremely strong" silliness, mind you. Just your plain, average, run-of-the mill keep. If he's going to appear in the next movie, he's not exactly minor, but I don't see the point of all the fuss. — JIP | Talk 14:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please do a little bit of research before nominating articles and wasting peoples time. kaal 20:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a ridiculous nomination. Rather major character in the single most popular children's/YA book series ever. I see few possibilities here: WP:POINT, nominating an article in an area in which one is ignorant... can't think of much else. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I would like to see this user banned from nominating on this page he does not follows the nominations guidelines and consequently wastes a great deal of other users time which could be more productively spent on improving articles. Wincoote 13:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 03:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 21:12, 19 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 Internet slang. —Korath (Talk) 00:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aolish

This neoligism (shoudl be AOLish) for leet speak doesn't belong in wikipedia or the wiktionary, for internet slang 827 google hits is nothing--nixie 23:03, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mundungus Fletcher

This article begins with the opening sentence: "Mundungus Flectcher was mentioned in passing in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". Is "encyclopedic notability" a requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia? If so, does writing 3 paragraphs about any given subject remotely attached to a notable parent subject bypass such an encyclopedic requirement? --GRider\talk 23:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Mundungus Fletcher. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 23:13 Z
    • This section of Wikipedia is called Votes for deletion, not Votes for inclusion; our fellow Wikipedians can speak for themselves. Thank you for spamming. --GRider\talk 23:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, you should speak for yourself as well - by which I mean you should give your opinion on Mundungus (et al). If you think Mundungus should be deleted, you should tell us why. If you do not, you should not list him here. There are other places in WP to achieve consensus on a point of discussion. Radiant! 08:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think it is clear that Grider is either arguing non-notability or acting in bad faith. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he is sincere but obviously wrong. Keep.
  • Strong Keep Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Yes, this character was only mentioned in passing in Chamber of Secrets, BUT, as the article goes on to say, becomes a significant character in the book Order of the Phoenix. Therefore, your nomination is misleading, to say the least. I don't know which possibility disturbs me more: 1). That you didn't bother to read the whole article before listing it for VfD... or 2). That you did read the whole article and deliberately left out the facts so as to mislead people into voting to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (though I think Harry Potter is a really bad story) It seems that this charachter is notable. --Neigel von Teighen 00:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and delist misleading nominations. Kappa 00:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Kappa, this is an invalid nomination and should be delisted. —RaD Man (talk) 02:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Even though I disagree with this nomination, I disagree with delisting on principle, as it could too easily be abused since the definition of an 'invalid' nomination is not consensual. There have been at least two policy proposals about removing VfD entries that were both shot down. Radiant! 08:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT. —Korath (Talk) 05:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Markaci, Kappa and Radman. GRider doesn't appear to understand current VfD policy, as shown by his/her numerous listings-without-reason.--Gene_poole 05:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Xezbeth 05:56, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge as relatively minor character. Radiant! 08:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough given the high profile of Harry Potter. Capitalistroadster 10:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's do this by the book; after all, it was vfded Lectonar 10:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This character is more important than GRider might indicate. Sjakkalle 13:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • strong keep please read the full article before nominating. kaal 19:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please take more care with your nominations in the future. Wincoote 13:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 03:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notable character. Hedley 03:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to wherever they're storing HP minor characters these days. --Carnildo 05:02, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HexJournals

Article was written in December, has had little in the way of modification since then, and yet still doesn't tell us what HexJournals is, or why it's notable, and there's no link to a website which might give us this information. RickK 23:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google gives 2 hits for HexJournals + "Brian McCoy" and about 300 hits for just HexJournals (mostly fluff from messageboards etc.). The website appears to be http://www.hexjournals.com. Reasons to delete: not notable, contextless article, self-promotion, WP is not a web- or blog guide. jni 10:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Radiant_* 09:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this blogcruft/promotion. Edeans 22:16, 18 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 Gamaliel 05:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Kevgas

  • Delete Vanity --DaveC 23:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Page is not made by subject; will be expanded. -- Mystache
  • Userfy if the appropriate user page can be identified (according to the article, Kevgas is known for being a hard core Wikipedian), Delete otherwise. It doesn't matter who the author is; the subject is not notable. Android79 02:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am one of the original creators of this page. I can vouch that George Kevgas does indeed spend most of this day searching Wikipedia. He also carry's an unique bit of notability around Seton Hall University's Campus. If anyone has ever heard of Facebook which is a online directory that connects social groups at colleges and universitys, under this Seton Hall group there is actually a George Kevgas fan club. George Kevgas himself did not created the page. It is not Vanity. Once again I was one of the original authors of the page. If anyone has any questions I urge you to contact me at my office at McCarter & English, LLP in Newark, NJ. My email is EMCKEOWN@MCCARTER.COM I urge you all not to vote to delete this page. It is not vanity since George Kevgas himself did not create it. Mr. Kevgas is someone who many people love and admire at Seton Hall University. Thank you. -- Doc13mets
  • Delete Being the unwilling subject of this article, I would wholeheartedly agree that the subect is not notable. The page was made by classmates of mine at Seton Hall, namely those two preceeding users who have voted to keep the article. In addition, while not explicit, it could be construed as a personal attack; some of the statements, while sounding vaguely neutral, are actually meant as inside jokes at my expense to then be enjoyed by themselves and others who might know me. I would argue that they do indeed have excess spare time on their hands to be creating encyclopedic articles about a mundane undergraduate student. I have already removed the elements of the article that were the primary sources of my disparagement, but did not wish to completely blank the page. I suggest deleting this article at the earliest possible convenience and would like to apologize for these individuals' inability to fill their spare time with more productive activities. Please refer any questions through my Wikipedia account. --hellenica 10:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, this article should probably be Speedy Deleted. Android79 13:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you look at the history of the page, Mr. Kevgas in and of himself edits it, suggesting that he doesn't want the page to deleted, just that he wants to obfuscate the facts contained herein. -- Unsigned comment by Mystache
    • You only get one vote. A "Speedy Keep" is different from a Keep; it means you think this VfD nomination was made in bad faith, which is clearly not the case. (Whether or not your vote(s) will be taken at face value is another matter entirely, as most of your edits are to the article in question and this VfD discussion.) Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Android79 15:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Right. So noted. -- Mystache
  • Delete as either attack page or vanity. I don't care which it is, either way delete it. Radiant_* 09:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for good reasons noted by others above. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Attack page or vanity, not notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I must also once again note this page was not made in vain and did not have any inside jokes. I asked Mr. Kevgas today to tell me what inside jokes were in it, he had no response. Just because you think an article does not have any notibility does not mean thats true. Mr. Kevgas is an extreamly humble human being and would not ever want such an honor bestowed upon himself. He is not only known throught-out the Seton Hall Community as practically a living legend, but he is also known in many other schools involved with their own particular Model United Nations programs and these people have never even met him! I have gone to conferences and mentioned George's name and people have come up to me and said "You know George Kevgas?" "I hear George Kevgas is an author is it true?" He honestly is a living legend around the Model United Nations Circuit and that does encompass a large group of people. George has inspired many "MUNers". George Kevgas is a humble person, but a large portion of people do believe he belongs in Wikipedia, if you doubt that, I challenge you to come to Seton Hall's Campus one day and see for your self. Doc13mets 22:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I would like now to quote some exact phrases in Wikipedia’s policy’s. “If you are reasonably significant, someone will create an article about you sooner or later”. There are many of us that feel Kevgas should have a Wikipedia article. I have talked to many people and they are even willing to start a petition if that would help the cause, just let me know where to send it. Many people do believe Mr. Kevgas is ineed reasonably significant. I would ask unless you yourself are heavily involved in the North East Model United Nations Circuit to not comment on this matter. Doc13mets 22:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Doc13mets, it is ridiculous to say that only people in a realm just barely notable in its own right can judge the notability of this. Moderately notable individuals within a barely notable phenomenon do not deserve individual articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you Jmabel made my point... "Moderately notable individuals"... they are still NOTABLE... Moderate or not, they are still NOTABLE and at one time remember, thinking the world was round, was a barely notable phenomenon. Doc13mets 07:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Also to make the point that Model UN is a barely notable phenomenon is ridiculous such famous notables are Samuel L. Jackson and Chelsea Clinton. Doc13mets 15:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm pretty sure I know how this vote is going to turn out, but to put this in a better perspective for our two objectors: If we look at the Boy Scouts of America, we can all agree that they deserve an article as a notable group. However, very few actual Boy Scouts are noteworthy enough to warrant an article solely on the basis of their standing within that organization. --66.92.248.254 15:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Good point, but I must object to the fact that I highly doubt a boy scout from say North Jersey is actually known as far away as Montreal, Quebec. Mr. Kevgas does hold this stature. I do not believe your point also works on Mr. Kevgas.Doc13mets 16:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As a Model UN alum myself, I have to say that Model UN was a notable experience in my life. As far as WP is concerned, however, I cannot see how this article is even remotely notable, outside of a small circle of friends (or enemies, as applicable). Delete. Edeans 22:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Mystache in this. I know George, and I can also vouch for the authenticity of the article. unsigned vote from User:Spartacusprime
  • User's first day

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 - kept - SimonP 05:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mirai Sentai Time Ranger

Power Ranger cruft, or encyclopedically notable trivia? --GRider\talk 23:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correction to the VfD: This article refers not to a "minor character" but to an entire 50-episode television series. Checking "What links here" would have turned up that information. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • One or the other. Merge or keep it anyway. Kappa 00:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The page isn't clear, but it seems to cover an entire TV show, or at least a season of one, not an episode or something of that nature. Keep until someone corrects any misapprehension. Meelar (talk) 03:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. Megan1967 05:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as minor character. Radiant! 08:36, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It is still in work.
Note Unsigned vote by anon 68.200.81.62
  • Keep and cleanup: It is not a well-written article (yet; I'll tip off some of my PR-fan friends that it needs some help) but we are talking about an entire TV series here. It can't reasonably be dismissed as "fancruft". -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup Fancruft, but not beyond rescue. Chris 22:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and cleanup - TimeRanger which, from what I know, is one word, if any sort of cruft, is Super Sentai cruft... kelvSYC 00:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Everyking 12:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • mere Yuckfoo 21:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
  • Keep and cleanup considering new evidence brought up by Antaeus. --InShaneee 05:19, 22 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) 00:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas J Henderson

Should a policy discussion be initiated for the inclusion of YMCA chairmen, or is this figure independently notable? --GRider\talk 23:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep national chairmen of the YMCA or failing that, merge them with List of National Chairmen of the YMCA. Kappa 00:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Seems notable. Megan1967 05:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, chairman of the national YMCA is notable. DaveTheRed 01:51, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Social Democrats

This article was created as a fork from social democracy by User:Michaelm, in order to avoid discussing the nature of the list. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michaelm. Lacrimosus 23:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • After this list was removed from social democracy, User:Michaelm restored it several times without discussing it with other editors, not attempting to address its main problems of inconsistency and lack of definition. Delete as invalid and factually inaccurate fork. Lacrimosus 23:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fork. Megan1967 05:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The list is true. -- Old Right 00:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. Some of those people might not agree to being called social democrats. DaveTheRed 01:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Carnildo 04:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; the term 'social democrat' seems like a gossamer shroud, wafting in the breeze. Also, 'US', 'Canada', 'International'? Ken Livingstone? Thabo Mbeki? And on a tangent, the article on Thabo seems very short. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Judson 21:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Admins -- please note that Judson & Old Right are one & the same (Crevaner too). God only knows how many others. Pretty much the most blatant sockpuppets in history. This has been going on for an eternity, and it's getting a little tiresome. Just have a look at the user pages, the talk pages, the edit histories, the billion times people have complained about this before. -- One fed-up wikipedian.
      • That's a ridiculous accusation. "User: Judson", "User: Crevaner" and myself are friends. It was Crevaner that told Judson and me about Wikipedia in the first place. Every one and a while we email each other about votes-for-deletion. -- Old Right 08:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Agree with the other deleters) TIMBO (T A L K) 20:07, 29 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guert

Originally just a link, tagged as a speedy. Tag removed by "article" author and content changed slightly. Now at best a sub-trivial neological dicdef. Quite possibly still a speedy. Joyous 23:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Agree Delete --DaveC 00:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete gently. Wikipedia doesn't do nicknames. Kappa 01:02, 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tornillo (Shelved Before Release)

No vote. Tagged Feb. 10 for VfD by User:Benuski. Listing here to complete the process. Joyous 23:55, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Recording session that was never released. Not notable. DaveTheRed 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Detele. Unreleased albums are out, unless they are notable for their non-release. Chris 03:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. unreleased nn. Edeans 03:47, 19 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 - deleted - SimonP 05:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes Tengesdal

Vanity, non-noteable. No article links to this one. - llywrch 00:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree Delete --DaveC 00:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Sjakkalle 09:28, 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_March_15_f726.html"