Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] March 19

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deeping Coomb

Is this stub "Tolkien-cruft"? Or is this "deep, well-defended valley in the northern White Mountains" encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion? If possible, please explain your vote. --GRider\talk 00:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider

  • Don't abuse VFD to make a point. Create something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth as a child of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional Series if you wish to help remove the number of Middle-earth articles here in a productive way. Jordi·✆ 00:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep cruft. Kappa 01:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT. See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Google test. —Korath (Talk) 02:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. In particular, it is unfair and rude for you to insist that we explain our votes when you do not explain the nomination. Chris 02:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 02:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Battle of the Hornburg. This one's almost notable. --Carnildo 04:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Anárion and Korath about WP:POINT. Eric119 05:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thought, merging would be okay as well. Eric119 05:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Battle of the Hornburg. No need for a separate article as very little apart from the battle can be written about the place. Jonathunder 09:02, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Merge as minor concept. Be bold and do so - it's more fun than listing it here! Radiant_* 09:55, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. There is insufficient description of this in Tolkein's work to flesh out into an article suitable to stand on its own. Average Earthman 12:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keep or merge - SimonP 15:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore apparent bad faith nomination. Keep or merge - David Gerard 17:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Expand how? The only way to add information to this article would be to copy it in from Helm's Deep or Battle of the Hornburg. The article already contains everthing there is to know about the coomb itself. --Carnildo 07:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, but maybe to Helm's Deep. -R. fiend 03:00, 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 14:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deeping Stream

Is Google a fair barometer for Tolkien-related articles? Should this be kept, merged, or deleted? Does a LOTRwiki exist for this and similar articles? See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Deeping Coomb. --GRider\talk 00:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider.

  • Don't abuse VFD to make a point. Create something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth as a child of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional Series if you wish to help remove the number of Middle-earth articles here in a productive way. Jordi·✆ 00:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This should be merged or kept. Kappa 02:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT. See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Google test. —Korath (Talk) 02:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 02:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 02:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Middle-Earth-cruft, and not a likely search term. --Carnildo 04:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Anárion and Korath about WP:POINT. Eric119 05:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thought, merging would be okay as well. Eric119 05:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor fictional trivia CDC (talk) 05:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as minor concept. Be bold and do so - it's more fun than listing it here! Radiant_* 09:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Harmless. Wincoote 11:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I do not believe there is sufficient information in Tolkein's work to expand this from a stub article, and hence there is insufficient detail to stand on its own. This is a stream that gets a brief mention in relation to a battle that has an article that states that Tolkein himself stated was incidental to the main story.Average Earthman 12:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keep or merge - SimonP 15:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore apparent bad faith nomination, else keep or merge - David Gerard 17:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless. Grue 20:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Expand how? The article already contains the sum total of all information on the subject. --Carnildo 07:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge' to either Rohan, Helm's Deep, or something similar. Very trivial on it's own. -R. fiend 04:36, 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 - kept - SimonP 14:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oh! Mr Porter!

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Let us delete it. Turpissimus 80.229.228.203 01:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Speedy delete. Hedley 03:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep now be re-write article to Wikipedia standards. For example, it shouldn't be starting with a heading, or at least i've never seen an article starting with one. Also, it needs to clearly distinguish just with "Oh! Mr Porter" is; If there is more than one thing that is "Oh! Mr Porter", it should be disambiguation. Topic is now notable, though, and not vandalism as before. Hedley 22:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy. Patent nonsense anyone? CXI 03:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It was nice of the contributor to try and help us out with the lyrics when they clicked on that red link and wikipedia invited them to make an article. Kappa 03:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as Patent Nonsense Merge with the article on the film. --Carnildo 04:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. Too weird. - Lucky 6.9 07:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not patent nonsense. It is a fairly well-known British music-hall song sung by Marie Lloyd and these are the lyrics. Used as the inspiration for a Will Hay film in 1937. But it's still non-encyclopaedic. Delete. Dbiv 10:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as rewritten. It is now encyclopaedic. Dbiv 19:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with that film or delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not patent nonsense, the words to a music hall song. If someone writes a good article about the film of the same name then perhaps I may reconsider my vote, but currently delete. Average Earthman 12:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a speedy, but yes a delete - David Gerard 17:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep new version. Excellent rewrite! - David Gerard 10:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I can go for that. I didn't know this was something that actually existed. Gotta stop pulling the trigger... - Lucky 6.9 04:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh Mr. Porter what a silly article I am. Jonathunder 03:50, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Keep. It went from a rather silly sub-stub which didn't even identify the subject matter, to a very solid stub, and now hopefully on its way to a decent article. So I've changed my vote. Jonathunder 23:35, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Delete Mr. Porter. Keep and/or Merge if necessary as content has been added. Ganymead 02:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've rewritten the article to make it more keepworthy. I'd respectfully suggest that this is a case where flagging an item for cleanup is more appropriate than nominating it for deletion. Before you nominate an article for deletion, or vote "delete," please take the time to see what other articles link to it. In this case, you'd have seen that it was a song by a noted musichall performer, and not just a series of random phrases. --Jacobw 15:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe it's a real song and movie. Mykola Petrenko 17:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have also added to the article, to make it more encyclopedic. I actually wrote a stub on the film, but on second thoughts I think we should have a single article on the song and the film. However we should be sure about the exact punctuation and spelling of the title. It is possible that the exact title of the song and the film may vary, it may be the exact title of the song is unclear. The film is better known nowadays, its spelling is easier to establish, treat it as standard.PatGallacher 18:31, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Merge as history of title into the film article. Yes, it is better than it was, although I seriously worry about the two exclamation marks as one is correct for the song and the other for the film, but neither has both, thus the article title as it stands is incorrect both ways! --Vamp:Willow 19:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now Kappa 20:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep if we have articles for all sorts of modern pop songs, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't have them on traditional songs as well. If anyone doubts that it's a real song, there was a Herman's Hermits cover from the mid-60s as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme hyper keep. —RaD Man (talk) 20:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point, VampWillow. I now propose to be bold, but as things could be getting confused I will wait 24 hours or so for anyone to object before I do this. That is, I will treat "Oh, Mr Porter!" (the film title) as the primary form, merge anything that is not already merged into a single article under that title, and turn "Oh! Mr Porter!" and "Oh! Mr Porter" into redirects. PatGallacher 20:16, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Keep. As currently written, this is a good aticle. -Willmcw 20:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It's now a perfectly good stub article about an old Music Hall song with an interesting history. Admittedly the article was somewhat sparse at the time it was listed, comprising then only the lyrics of part of the song. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep of new rewrite. Glad I checked my talk page! Great new article. - Lucky 6.9 23:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article has transformed itself (with a little help from Wikipedians!) over the last week. Ian Cairns 13:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Lochaber 15:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 19:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Worth keeping now that it is upgraded into an article. Rlquall 01:21, 30 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) 10:21, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Holvik

De-speedied. 838 hits [1], the first hit is a good reference. No vote. Kappa 01:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It originally came from someone who posted a couple of vanity articles and added himself to an existing article. Thought this was another vanity article, so I didn't Google it. Naughty Lucky! Tentative keep, but this really needs serious expansion. - Lucky 6.9 01:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 01:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She doesn't have an allmusic.com article, but it does list credits for appearing on five albums. (Note that this doesn't mean she has five albums, but that she sang in some capacity, however small, on five albums by others.) I'm going to vote delete anyway because the article doesn't establish any notability and I'm not convinced there is any. Gamaliel 05:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Looking to allmusic.com for classical artists is completely silly - David Gerard 17:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Hardly silly at all, if you know anything about the site. The AMG had a site called allclassical.com which they have folded into allmusic.com and has extensive information about classical recordings. Gamaliel 06:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe Allmusic.com can be sometimes biased towards popular and english-spoken music: many notable classical singers do not have biographic articles (eg., Jochen Kowalski, Yvonne Naef, Claudio Desderi, Lorenzo Saccommani). Karen Novik is, of course, less notable than these. But singing Carmen's Micaela with the Illionis Opera [2], performing at the Weill Recital Hall at Carnegie Hall [3] and participanting in an album of Marc Blitzen's songs [4] seems above the bar to me. She is also listed as a previous winner of the annual solo competition of the Oratorio Society of NY here [5] vlad_mv 16:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice. Keep, though article needs expansion. Chris 16:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 17:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets Wikimusic Project guidelines and is notable within genre. Have expanded article to add some of the highlights of the career. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has no false information. Mykola Petrenko 18:05, 24 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) 10:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karim Rashid

Tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "Wikipedia is not a resume service". No vote I vote keep, below. Kappa 01:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I felt like this article is just promoting himself, not really supposed to be on Wikipedia. Zscout370 02:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) (See Below)
  • Keep guys with Time Magazine articles about them. Kappa 02:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • and industrial designers who get 48,800 hits. (Sorry, didn't have time to google before nominating.) Kappa 02:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's fine - IMO, people de-speedying articles for VfD and those finding orphaned nominations don't have to explain themselves, becauase it's not their nomination. Oh, and keep. Chris 02:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: The way the articled is presented is deemed to be self promotion and Wikipedia is not really supposedly to be used for that. Even though it is great he has been featured in a publication like Time, but I still think this article is self-promotion. Zscout370 02:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I think it only 'looks' like self-promotion because it relies too much on other promotional materials, and this is a problem that can be fixed. Kappa 03:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Then let's see what happens with the voting. If it should be kept, then it should need major cleaning up. Zscout370 04:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Article has seen some decent cleanup from the original author, which is nice. Looks notable in his field too. Keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It appears that this article has been cleaned up to NPOV, which is what we strive for here isn't it? If they're featured in TIME Magazine, I consider them notable. If he, himself, did this article, then it should be rewritten so as to not give that impression. For a clean article, keep. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:32, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be notable in his field. Capitalistroadster 07:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cleanup. You won me over, however, I personally think it could be cleaned up a little bit to make it non-vanity. Zscout370 15:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 17:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've been won over. I originally put the speedy delete tag on because the first version of the article looked like a resume. I've seen the edit and can see some value in the article. I think maybe a cleanup could be done though. Jwinters | Talk 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep Geez, people... Rashid is one of the most famous and notable designers right now, right up there with people like Phillipe Starck. I have one of his chairs. A simple two-second Google test would tell you that he isn't remotely like the vanity articles we deal with everyday (high schoolers, etc.). Keep keep keep keep keep keep keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Smith (remote viewer)

Some hits on Google, many not the same person. Article is in a big mess and I was going to just tag for clean-up, but chat room suggesting VfD, so I thought i'd add it here. I'm not sure whether a Texas remote viewer is notable or not, theres a comment on the talk page suggesting he isn't. I don't think hes too notable but as i'm not sure i'll go with a weak delete, clean-up if it survives. Hedley 02:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • From talk page: Boy, what do we do with articles about people's imaginary lives? Does this guy exist, I wonder? - DavidWBrooks 20:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) Hedley 02:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He seems to be a bigshot in the remote viewing community, but that doesn't make for sufficient notability. --Carnildo 04:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Gamaliel 05:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep bigshots in the remote viewing community. Kappa 12:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but needs a severe NPOVing - David Gerard 17:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established (and I find the article highly dubious). Radiant_* 19:00, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. vlad_mv 03:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there any evidence that this person actually exists and is an important person in the "remote viewing community"? Is there any proof that this is anything other than a hoax or self-promotion? Gamaliel 06:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of these guys are bigshots for no reason other than sufficient self-promotion. --Carnildo 07:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That would mean this article is likely a kind of vanity, no? Radiant_* 12:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete likely promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable CDC (talk) 19:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Paul Smith bio. I agree the Wiki stubb is very badly written, but I find the claims above that Paul Smith does not exist to be absolutely laughable. He is one of the 3/4 men responsible for the development of remote viewing as a structured process. No question. In fact, he wrote the military manual on the subject! Now his existence, and the significance of his work is clear. The only real question is whether Wiki wants remote viewing in it. Based upon my past experiences on deletion, Wiki has a pro Western materialistic skeptical bias to its voting, and it will get dumped for this reason. But personally, I don't understand the logic of voting in WWE referees, and dumping guys like Paul...... but thats exactly how Wiki works. Timharwoodx 16:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 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 speedy delete.

  • 01:31, 21 Mar 2005 Academic Challenger deleted KNodwic ((nominated for VFD, votes 5-0 to delete in the first hour and the author also OKed deletion))

--Deathphoenix 15:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KNodwic

The fictional world created by a few Australian private school students, which exists nowhere but on their website and written down in exercise books. While such private fictional endeavors are fun, they aren't what Wikipedia is here to chronicle. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It's probably designed to show off to classmates with the response 'freaks'. It isn't even complete, the bottom two sections have editing notes and that doesn't help it's case. Delete unless its from something notable such as a published book, which it doesn't appear to be if a film called "Attack of the Coke Machine" fictionally spawned from it. Hedley 03:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity - David Gerard 17:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity fiction -- Cyrius|✎ 23:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, nn. Or should I say studentfictionalworldcruft? vlad_mv 03:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The authors have blanked the page (leaving the deletion notice) and put on a note appologizing and requesting deletion, and since there are no votes to keep, I am going to delete it now. Academic Challenger 01:31, 21 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 08:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zakir Raman

Strangely, I added an image to this page a while back and can't remember doing it at all. Either way, Zakir Raman: No Google hits. In Search Of The Everlasting: No Google hits. This article isn't notable, most likely a hoax and if that is the case vandalism of adding this person to George Harrison and other articles should be undone also. Hedley 03:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Confirmed fabrication of this article: Post on internet forum located here states "I added JonHawk's Zakir Raman (made up) and no-ones noticed it yet". I'm now in belief it is a speedy delete candidate. Hedley 03:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Speedy deleted as vandalism, given no corroborating evidence of his existence. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:15, 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 14:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pube Muppet

Discovered during the clean-up process after closing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clock Crew. I can find little evidence that this meets the recommended criteria for webcomics. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without independently verifiable evidence anyone cares - David Gerard 17:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is aiming to have the most complete encyclopedia there is. How can this be accomplished when relevant articles are deleted? ~Spark05

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Goodall

Although this person exists, everything it says about him is not true. Check the university website. --Fredthemonsterman 05:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The university humanities website is currently out of date as it failed to meet the deadline for recent updates. Theerfore not all enteries include accurate information. Moreover, Peter Goodall is certainly an academic worth an encylopedia article about because of the relevance of his research and his achievments. Perhaps you should look further into his history- I think a biography about him is available on auslit- and the article was based on an interview with and other academics in the english department at the university, including Rosemary Colmer. He teaches accross a broad range of subject matter including the english literature masters and honours programmes. So please before deleting this page, research the topic further as i think it is important to give recognition to the significant contribution Australin academics are making, particularly as there is a tendency to overlook their achievmnets- particularly when areas such as literature, and egyptological studies have important historical foundations. unsigned comment by anon user:137.111.13.34
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability. Megan1967 06:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree that the article does not establish "notability". Clearly Professor Goodall has contributed significantly to a number of fields, most noteworthy, is literature and holds a high profile position coupled with a number of degrees (including an honoury doctorate from Macquarie University) from highly regarded universities, including Oxford and Harvard. If further information needs to be added, Peter is contactable via email, for verification, chapters from "la chess sherry" or other recent research papers (which he has agreed to)peter.goodall@hmn.mq.edu.au and is strong supporter of highlighting the works of Australian academics. Perhaps you definition of notability needs to be reconsidered- second unsigned comment by anon user:137.111.13.34
      • Tell you what, I'll go one better. I live not very far from Maq. I'll ask Mr. Goodall himself this Monday about the claims made in that article and for any publications he has produced. Megan1967 11:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • He is not a Professor, nor does he have the degrees you say. I think this is a prank. See his bio here http://www.engl.mq.edu.au/about01.htm --Fredthemonsterman 06:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to say i am offended by that comment as it completely undermines my credibility as a person- i don't think it is appropritate or helpful to make statements without doing all the particulars. Ihave provided his email address and if you do not wish to ascertain the legitimacy of this article through him, you may also contact the computing department regarding the incomplete biographical information of a number of the humanities/SCMP staff. I categorically deny falsifying any information and it is just not appropriate to advocate for the deletion of an article about someone who has contributed much to thinking and theory throughout his long academic life. I hope this is helpful but i strongly maintain that Australian academics really do need to be given more recognition for their contribution. third unsigned comment by anon user:137.111.13.34
  • Keep. I am a GP at Round Corner Medical Centre in Dural, with an interest in English literature. I have read his nove "La chess sherry", which was a very interesting historical account of the profound meaning chess took on in Venice during the period of the Grand Serene Republic. He approaches the topic of dominance and democracy drawing upon the works of Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, Jean-Jacques Rosseau, Jacques Derrida, Andy Warhol, Marcelle Freiman, Jane Messer, Rosemary Colmer, Andy Kissane and David Hume. Clearly, it is a very electic and original approach, because not only has Professor Goodall shown new insights into the theories of the abovementioned people, he has been able to draw them together and develop an innovative new theoretical perspective, which is something rare in academia these days. I am not sure who the writer of this bio was as they remained anonymous, however I do think they failed to provide sufficient information or background on his works and their significance to Australian literature. Hopefully someone from a literary background will be able to expand upon them.--Josette.docherty@gmail.com 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • first and only edit so far from this user
  • == Keep this one! == I do know of peter Goodall but tend to agree with Josette that his bio needs significant work. It seems to have been written by an amateur, which is a pity, as its great to see Australian academics been given mention in encyclopedias. While I have not read his new book, I have seen, but after reading Josette's comment I will be obtaining myself a copy, though I have read several of his research papers in the field of Egyptology, which is an interest of myself and my late friend Professor Pierre Beaumont, who I believe also appreciated his works. --Stephent@psych.usyd.edu.au 07:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • first and only edit so far from this user
  • Keep and Expand or Clean Up. The Macquarie website shows him as Deputy Dean of Humanities having published a work on the division between high culture and popular culture. Goodall is soon to publish an edition of the Annotated Bibliography of Chaucer's Monk's Tale and Nun's Priest's Tale. [6] I can find no record of his novel though and a Google search for "Peter Goodall" Sherry comes up with nothing of interest. [7]. I will have a go at rewriting this myself as the current article doesn't meet verifiability standards. Capitalistroadster 07:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for you feedback- it would be great if someone could edit it to make it fit the wikipedia criteria- as i say bring on more articles about people unsigned comment by user:SamuelKatinsky, a new user
  • Comment: A number of the contributions above are made by people with remarkably similar (verbose) style and tendency to make spelling mistakes. The whole thing smells like yet another tiresomely unfunny university "joke"; cf Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"The Noble Kingdom of ShakAlistan". -- Hoary 12:18, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
    • That is unfair and a very pretentious thing to say - as many people use internet language and do not spell check or edit online pieces. There is nothing even "joke like" about the article and I would suggest that you really do check you facts before making unsubstantiated and quite frankly judgemental moralistic claims- please be real and look at your own issues rather than putting them on the internet. I stand by what I said and think Prof. Goodall is a very commendable person worthy of an encylopedia article. Read his stuff it is really good:) fourth unsigned comment by anon user:137.111.13.34
  • Comment - V.C. ? The only Australian term that uses V.C. that I know of is the Victoria Cross, and he doesn't have one. Unless the creator can explain what I've missed, I'd suggest that anything this article says that there is no cite for should be deleted. Average Earthman 14:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The title V.C. given to Prof. Goodall is not a reference to either the victoria cross or vice chancellor, but rather is an honorary dignity ( called Most high Viccali Canonist, therefore the V.C. initials). This is one of the highest academic awards given out in Turkmenistan and is something i am sure he is extremely proud of. Don't discredit such a great honour fifth unsigned comment by anon user:137.111.13.34
      • If it was such a great honour, he'd have used it on the university website. He hasn't. Externally cite your claim. Average Earthman 10:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, apparent hoax - David Gerard 17:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, Delete Radiant_* 18:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have edited this page showing the verifiable info about Goodall. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • While Capitalistroadster has again done an outstanding job of cleaning up the article, I can find no evidence that this person meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. (Incidentally, both the links you added are returning 404 errors tonight.) Unless more evidence of notability can be presented, I have to vote delete. I may be biased because of the sockpuppet support, though. Rossami (talk) 07:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sorry Rossami. I can't get the links to work despite the fact that they seem to work from Google. I cleaned it up so that people can consider his case for inclusion from the merits rather than the nonsense that he was born in 1921 in Turkmenistan presumably of the Turkmen Goodalls. No change in vote. Capitalistroadster 09:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Acting Dean, so not a low level professor. I've not got the impression that Macquarie is a bog-standard Uni, I thought they were better than that (a good standard Australian Uni - top twelve in the country, appeared in the top 100 of Asiaweek's survey of Asian universities, that sort of thing) and the humanities are one of their stronger areas. So a reasonably high position at a reasonably good university - and since I see no good reason why we should be significantly harsher on academics than we are on actors, sportspeople or pokemon cards, that would warrant Capitalistroadster's article as a keep, unverifiable claims by sockpuppets or not. Average Earthman 10:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If he's a dean at a good college, that would make him more notable than the average professor. Keep the rewrite. DaveTheRed 05:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite and deans of good colleges. Kappa 08:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If he deserves an article at all, he deserves one without the original contents of this article fouling the history page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 and recreate as redirect. —Korath (Talk) 15:20, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left overtures

Advertisement. What's more, this page was deleted before and immediately recreated by the author. Kairos 05:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Then mark it {{deleteagain}}. —Korath (Talk) 05:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. Sorry. This is my first VfD. Kairos 06:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, record store ad. Megan1967 06:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe a redirect to Leftoverture, the album by Kansas? DaveTheRed 06:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Speedy deleted and redirected. A redirect gives something to protect if it comes back again, which is a plus. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:23, 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 14:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CYNF

Although it tries to look like an article, the first sentence is pure marketing-speak. 376 hits on Google for "CYNF", and nearly all of them are false positives. Delete ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read notes in discussion segment before acting upon this recommendation. If a rewrite is needed, let me know however the basis for this article in the first sentences were the Friendster ones, if you want to delete these should you not get the Friendster ones changed also.

  • Comment, I feel that as long as these social networking sites or places are notable enough, and their articles are not deliberately POV, then they can stay. See also Myspace. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I am Andrew Venn, co-founder of CYNF.

I have since edited the first lines of the article to make it sound less marketing speak, hope this addresses the key concern.

In relation to CYNF I do believe that an entry is valuable because CYNF represents a unique use of social networks and has some features not seen elsewhere:

1. Asymetrical mapping of relationships 2. Use of network distance to control release of information (ie. in this case asset availability information) 3. The linking of Assets to social networks 4. Creation of virtual libraries based upon social networks.

The organisation is relatively new, and not marketed heavily and has not employed SEO people. It has had rather organic growth to date and so I am not suprised that there is little on Google. That said we were invited last week to demo our product at Microsoft's Social Computing Symposium 2005 being held in April. Being based in Australia, makes it a costly exercise so it is unlikely at this stage that we will attend. We also have local organisations that have shown significant interest and one in partuclar wants us to customise a site for us for musicians to share equipment.

If you have time have a look at the site, and I am willing to continue the discussion via my e-mail andrew.venn@cynf.com

--07:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)~ PS: How can I please a vote?

    • Voting is only counted by those logged into Wikipedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for being helpful Steven. I agree with your reference to MySpace, I was not trying to do more than add some information that I am an expert on (having designed it) into Wikipedia. I will now endevour to get an account, hope it is easy!

Further changes made with the inclusion of a graphic denoting how the virtual library is constructed. Let me know if this is now satisfactory. AndrewCYNF 09:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertising. The image is copyrighted, as well. Released so long as the attribution is maintained, but we can't guarantee that forks will do that. RickK 09:34, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Attribution is required even under Wikipedia's default GFDL. It's the "not modified in any manner" that is undesirable. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If CYNF's entry is advertising what of the following?

MySpace...

Myspace (or MySpace) is a free service that uses the internet for online communication through an interactive network of photos, weblogs, user profiles, e-mail, web forums, groups, as well as many other communication devices. This all-inclusive service is sometimes called a social networking interface. It is an active site always updating or creating new features for their members. Myspace is also sometimes used to describe a user created webpage on the Myspace.com service.

Tribe

Tribe.net (often shortened to "Tribe") is a website that hosts a online community of friends, similar to Orkut or Friendster. Anyone may register as a new Tribe user, and may then define his or her immediate network of friends, either by choosing from existing members or by inviting new members to join. Each of these users may in turn define their own network of friends. (This process results in a type of user-driven viral marketing on behalf of Tribe.net.)

How are these any different. Given that these are there, how is it they are acceptable but ours not? Hell MySpace even goes as far as to put a graphic of their homepage. What about that for advertising?! What is it in particular that you do not like. Please be more specific. What sentence, what phrase, what elements. Because I am not seeing the difference between this entry and those sighted above. We are happy to make changes, but please give us some direction.

After all any information disemination could be labelled advertising. The question is, is this trying to inform or sell. I do not see this entry as a sales pitch, if you want to see sales pitches I can point you at those. We have not even mentioned that the service is free because we thought that was "advertising". We just believe that if an entry is given to Friendster, Orkut, LinkedIn, etc. etc. then we should be included with our peers. Especially as we are offering something of real value that is free. What about you have a look at the site?

As for the graphic, what do you want us to do? It is an illustration of the concept. Of course we are happy for it to be displayed on your site, but having it modified or co-opted by others as their work is hardly right. If it becomes a problem we will pull it. Which lessens the content that if offered to your users. I think the intention of the tagging process is one of making sure the authors of the articles do not steal or misrepresent work as their own. This is our work, our post so please explain the problem for me.

I must admit that for all the press about this being an open effort, it seems that there are far too many problems in entering information. There so far has been no comment about whether the entry is worthwhile in the first place, whether CYNF is valuable and should have an entry. The discussion has been purely about semantics of the entry. It is easy for people to critique others work but so far I have not seen one constructive suggestion. We are happy to make changes, but give us more direction.

Best regards, AndrewCYNF 218.214.164.25 17:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • I happen to know the person who uploaded the image to the Myspace article. It wasn't a promotion however, but a screenshot depiction of a typical page. I was the main contributor to the article, mainly because I have a profile at Myspace, him also. However, my intentions were not to promote it, but simply state that it existed, as many things here are stated in NPOV. Also note that neither of us founded the site ourselves. Had the creator started the article, then suspicion would arise against him. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad - David Gerard 17:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please check the deletion policy, what things are not reasons for deletion, consider whether you are actually wanting the article merged, expanded or cleaned up rather than deleted. Use the appropriate mechanism instead of VFD.

Vanity page, Adversiting or other spam: List on Votes for deletion

In terms of things that are not reasons for deletion, the reasons listed here are not among them. Delete advert. Chris 18:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 18:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as shades of vanity, advert, and/or non-notable. I would dispute the claim that Friendster, Orkut, and LinkedIn are this company's 'peers', as each of those clears 200,000 Google hits—right now, CYNF seems to be a very small fish in a very big Internet. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, spam, non-notable. I've read the remarks below. It's all very easy: when CYNF is clearly notable we will need an article on it. If AndrewCYNF's judgement is correct, that should not be very long. But in the meantime, Wikipedia is not Wired and does not try to inform its readers of "memes on the rise." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To answer people's questions and statements:

Riffsyphon I apologise if I offended I was merely try to point out that my page, put up against those others, doesn't read much differently. I chose to be honest and make it clear who I was it seems that I am being punished for that. I agree that suspicion should arise, but the article should be judged on its content and subject. So I am confused as to why it is not just being re-edited as opposed to VFD

Others

It is not a vanity page.

We have not spammed wikipedia by dumping CYNF links on the friendster & myspace entries. Or asked our members or friends to vote or write entries for us.

As for advertising - tell me what to change. If the graphic is what offends then let me know what you want different. We do not even say that entry is free. We do not put our logo on the page, the graphic is not even from the website, it was created simply to describe the concept. Yes I am the co-founder, but felt that I have been very careful. The article talks about the concept.

As for non-notable, is size the criteria for notable/non-notable? In which case, do you want this encyclopedia to be able to provide information on nascent organisations or not? We are the only ones doing this anywhere and if people actually took time to see what the site has to offer then I think you would agree that what we are doing is at least interesting. No one anywhere is using social networks and combining it with lending and asset management or brought in the concept of trust into the equation.

If size is the sole criteria then show me where it says so and I will debate no more.

As for peers, in the last month we have been asked to demo our site/product at Microsoft's Social Computing Symposium 2005 held in April. If we can get invited to show our product at this symposium along with others then I think that we are entitled to use the word peer in relation to social networking/computing.

And yes, we are expected to make mistakes, we are new to this and so far it has been less than a pleasant experience.

AndrewCYNF 218.214.164.25 03:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Andrew, it's not (supposed to be) personal. The sometimes-terse shorthand on this VfD page can seem rude to new Wikipedians, but usually the result of a desire for efficiency rather than deliberate incivility.
Right now, CYNF seems to be a company that very few people have heard of, and is without significant recognition on the Internet. The existence of the acronym YASNS (yet another social networking system) and the very long list of companies in the field in our article on social networks suggests that there are a lot of players in the field, each of whom believe their product contributes something unique and fills some niche. Wikipedia tends to report on notoriety; we don't like to be responsible for building it. A lot of organizations (not necessarily yours) have noticed that a very effective way to build Google recognition is through the creation of Wikipedia articles, so we tend to be very wary of small companies that haven't already gained a lot of public attention.
I would also ask you to examine your motives in adding the article. If it's not to advertise or build buzz for your company, then why? If you would like to share information about trust-based social networks, perhaps it would be appropriate to add a section to the social network article, or to create articles on specific topics related to your technology. If you can cite peer-reviewed journal articles, so much the better.
A last point—have you considered creating a Wikipedia user account? It's very quick, and it might make it easier to keep some of this lengthy discussion off an already-large VfD page. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC), amended 15:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (my mistake) TenOfAllTrades | Talk.
  • Delete. Not notable. android↔talk 05:18, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Irishpunktom\talk 14:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, thank you for your response. Perhaps I am a little testy. I understand people's concern regarding entries such as these from start-ups. But we have been around for 12 months now and are taking a rather laid back approach to marketing generally (although this was not an attempt to market). I understand the page ranking process of Google, but understood that Google bought out a tag so that references could be made to sites that you didn't want to "vote" for and naturally assumed that was the case here (as it is on many blogging sites). If the link to CYNF at the bottom is a problem then I am happy to remove it. If we were chasing linkage we would have done it a year ago. In fact it was not on the original post. And on top of that what we offer is for free, it is not like we are advertising viagra. Although the responses made me feel I might have been.

If you have a look at the social networking page, I had edited it and mentioned what is unique about our concept. This too was removed (and on reflection was too markety, if such a word exists). I must admit to sounding like a marketter from time to time because it is a new concept and I am probably too close to the topic.

We believe what we have is unique and significant enough to rate a mention. If we wanted to list purely for advertisment purposes we would have do so a year ago, but we waited until we got a significant nod, like the interest from Microsoft. Only then did we feel it was an appropriate time to make an entry. If nothing more than to let people know of a new application for social networking.

What I would ask is other than volume what have the other sites got to offer beyond the "dating" concept in one form or another.

I can tell you why CYNF is unique, but whatever I do it will come across as advertising:

CYNF is the first application of its kind that takes social networking to another level. It has the following very unique features:

1. Linking social networking to asset lending and management (we also have a business to business site, but did not think that was appropriate to mention)

2. Use of trust and levels of trust within a social network to control access to information (in this case lendable assets)

3. Asymetric trust within social networks

On top of that what I did not mention in the article as we felt these were selling points, it is free, works for all types of assets, DVDs, CDs, Games and so on... has warranty reminding, overdue loan reminders, calendarisation of all assets, full loan tracking, recommend to friend features, multiple locations, downloadable spreadsheets with valuations suitable for insurance companies, a sell/swap feature to enable you to swap or sell items privately within your social network, 128 bit encryption on login, server side scripted PHP / MySQL code, hand-coded, housed in a bulletproof, ram proof, datacentre with fingerprint ID, hi res closed circuit cameras, dual CISCO redundant firewalls, off site mirroring to two separate locations, we don't ask for full names or locations, we are developing mobile capabilities, barcode scanning and so much more. ;-)

If it is volume and buzz that we need first then doesn't this tool you are all creating just become the vox pop of encyclopedias? I would suggest that obscure artists would be included but would not have over 2,000 people signed up.

I don't know what to do from here, I felt the article was more on the topic of social networking and our unique take on it than pushing ourselves. We felt it was worthy of mention as there is no other site on your list that uses a social network in the manner we do, with the underlying trust model as shown in the diagram. It kinda like a side entry on philips screwdrivers that says, and Phillips invented the another type of screwdriver that had benefits because.

Perhaps, as one of the other voters put it, we should just come back when we have made it and in the meantime be satisfied with being listed here with all the rest YASNs. But I can not help but feel our only difference to that of the MySpace or Friendster pages is that we do not have the volume of theirs, even though we are actually bringing new techniques to social networking not seen before.

By the way for your interest this concept was first created by us in 2000 and refined in 2001 before even Friendster was on the scene.

Best regards,

218.214.164.25 09:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) AndrewCYNF 09:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Sorry session expired - I was logged in.)

  • Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, non-notable. VladMV ٭ talk 18:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity CDC (talk) 19:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The author of the Article has removed the text of this article and requests the node be removed. My apologies to all, it was not my intent to use this great resource as marketing and honestly felt that what we are doing in this space is worthy of note but we certainly do not condone any spam. We recognise everyone's POV regarding whether we are note worthy at this time and defer to the majority of respondees. Thank you for your time. Best regards, AndrewCYNF 218.214.164.25 15:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) (again apologies for some reason I could not log in)
    • Even though it seems this will be deleted, you cannot blank the page yourself until Vfd has been completed. I have reverted you. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:22, 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. The article has been marked for pending deletion. sjorford →•← 10:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Watson

Cannot verify the claims of notability made in this article (I seriously doubt he ever played with The Beatles and Led Zeppelin). Google is only showing up Wikipedia mirrors thus article fails to establish notability in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. No Allmusic.com entry. More than likely a hoax. JamesBurns 06:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Ha ha ha. Delete - David Gerard 17:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's BJAODN it. Radiant_* 18:55, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. It does sound like nonsense, and I can't verify it either. There's also a copy on simple:, and it looks like there was a copy on de: and eo: at one time (according to the history). And another user added him to the paradiddle article. So probably delete, but I'll also ask User:Zanimum what's going on... sjorford →•← 22:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm sorry. Delete. I was essentially trying to show a friend how quickly Wikipedia deletes rubbish. When the community didn't delete the article, I decided to let it ride. Eventually, I simply forgot about it. I'm very sorry, and I promise to never do this sort of experiment again. I don't see why you'd even "BJAODN it", it's just an experiment that lasted well beyond itself. -- user:zanimum
    • I just tried to delete it myself, it said: "Can't delete this article because it contains new block-compressed revisions, which are not supported by the new selective undelete feature and could result in data loss if deletion and undeletion happened. This is a temporary situation which the developers are well aware of, and should be fixed within a month or two. Please mark the page for deletion, protect the page and wait for a software update to allow normal deletion. If there is an actual complaint from a copyright holder or other suitable legal complaint and they are unwilling to accept page blanking and protection as a temporary measure, please ask a developer for assistance." -- user:zanimum
      • OK, I've marked it for pending deletion. sjorford →•← 10:12, 21 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. jni 13:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butter troll

Urban dictionary definition. Xezbeth 07:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not to mention POV and unencyclopedic. I doubt this would even survive a trip to Wiktionary. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 17:31, 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. jni 13:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Sipe

According to the article, " has not spent his time writing books and getting published, he should be considered one of the greatest thinkers of our time." I can't find any papers by him mentioned on Google, either. Seems to me he fails the "Average Professor Test". --Carnildo 08:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, he hasn't published, just being a professor and even head of a department does not make him notable, despite his "cult following". RickK 08:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 11:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bad article. Gives the impression of a teacher only, and not at an establishment that appears to be particularly notable in that field (and a small university at that). Average Earthman 14:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without verifiability - David Gerard 17:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete since should be and is are not synonyms. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. VladMV ٭ talk 02:48, 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 keep since there is no clear consensus either way. (Total count was 7 to keep, 5 to delete and one rather pro-keep comment. Sjakkalle 06:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Voith

Non-notable soldier. RickK 08:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm rather left none the wiser from the article as to why this Lt-Col is notable. Any Canadians able to comment on him or his position? Delete unless importance clarified. Average Earthman 14:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment after later additions - he commands DART. That means he should be mentioned in the DART article. He is already. The annual budget of DART isn't impressive (the article says half a million Canadian dollars, which is just over 200,000 pounds), and does not suggest the Canadian government takes it that seriously, so while I'd keep the DART article, this doesn't convince me that the leader is notable. No change in vote. Average Earthman 10:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, he commands the entire DART team[8]. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So what? The DART team is notable, its commander and his extensive bio is not. RickK 21:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Frazzydee's note - David Gerard 17:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 02:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See Category:U.S. Army officers. We're back to "different rules for Canadians" again, I gather. Bearcat 02:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not at all. If this person were an American, I would have listed him, too. RickK 05:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • DART is notable. The current commander is not automatically notable. No evidence has been presented that he meets Voith the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Delete. (If Bearcat feels the standards are being inconsistently applied, the correct solution is to nominate the other inappropriate articles, not lower the standards.) Rossami (talk) 06:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Rossami, delete. Radiant_* 11:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep commanding officers of notable things. Kappa 20:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The DART is well known in Canada. - SimonP 22:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He is a notable soldier, the DART is well known in Canada --Kastraphatos 10:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete DART is notable, the commander is just a military position. When he moves into a new position he will just be another Lt. Col.-- Webgeer 23:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Samaritan 20:07, 27 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 - stubbed and kept - SimonP 14:48, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Problem of the Media: US Communication Politics in the 21st Century

I'm not sure what this is. It's not a book review, it's not an encyclopedia article about the book. If we got rid of everything but the first sentence, then it could be a decent stub of an article, but otherwise, this is original research, I guess. RickK 08:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks vaguely like a summary of the book. Delete as spam. Chris 16:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline keep. Is this a copyvio? - David Gerard 17:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but stubify. The book seems notable, the article is orignal research. DaveTheRed 18:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Article is a book summary, and may well be copyvio from some summary site. Delete content and list on Requested articles. Radiant_* 19:11, 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 - redirected - SimonP 14:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Flowers Of Romance

Is this a hoax? There is a musician named Tony Blackplait, and there is a group called The Flowers Of Romance that he is a member of, but how can they possibly be from Sealand? And isn't Sid Vicious a member of the group? RickK 08:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Independently, we had the same idea. (I commented in the talk page.) Moreover, I noticed this new page in my watchlist, suggesting to me that I had some involvement in its earlier deletion. -- Hoary 08:56, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • They are officially a Sealand band. Yes, Sid Vicious was a member at the beginning. I. comment added anonymously at 09:01, 2005 Mar 19 by User:82.131.22.53
    • What do you mean by saying that they are ("officially" or otherwise) a Sealand band? -- Hoary 09:32, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Delete, under the bar of notability, smells hoaxy. Megan1967 10:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Would be highly notable if it weren't a hoax. Indeed, truly remarkable ... - David Gerard 17:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, complete hoax - David Gerard 17:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not entirely a hoax - the band did exist but some of the claims made in the article appear bogus. Megan1967 02:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and move the current article The Flowers of Romance (band) here. However, according to the external link, this may be less of a hoax than it appears (if the external link is not a hoax too, which it may be). I think we're looking at 2 bands with the same name, one of which is a allegedly a reformation of the other, but with entirely different members. The Sealand reference seems pretty bogus, but they might claim to be from that "country" as a sort of anarchist statement or something. Anyway, if there's any truth to any of that it can be added to the existing article after it is moved. -R. fiend 18:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I wouldn't agree to moving it HERE, since the capital "O" of "Of" is incorrect. RickK 21:25, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually this should be made into a redirect to The Flowers of Romance, which is currently a disambig. However, I still like the idea of having The Flowers of Romance (band) at that title, as I think band trumps album. Deletion before redirect might still be a good option though, depending on wether any level of truth to this article is discovered. -R. fiend 02:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm a member of the Flowers. This is not a hoax. I can send you a CD (not joke) - what's the post address? And I want to send the emblem of the F. for the article. What's the e-mail address? And we are a Sealand band - ask Michael of Sealand. I
    • No, you're not from Sealand. You may all have decided to get Sealand passports, but you've clearly not grown up on some disused WWII gun platform just off the English coast, so you're not from there. In the same vein, I wouldn't say Rupert Murdoch is from America, even though he has a US passport, Australia still has to take the blame for him. Average Earthman 10:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • More to the point, O anonymous person who claims to be a member, what's your postal address? Or the nation, anyway. The only phone numbers that I noticed on the site were Finnish. -- Hoary 11:05, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • The nation is not important at all (if you are not a nationalist). I'm cosmopolitan. You can write the FR is an intercontinental or cosmopolitan band, if you don't like the 'Sealand'. Friendly, I
  • Delete as R.Fiend suggests. Radiant_* 12:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony Blackplait - US
  • Al Vainola - France
  • Roy Strider - Swizerland
  • Anti Pathique - France
  • Tuuliki Leinpere - Finland
  • Maarit Kangron - Holland
  • Reginleif Trubetsky - Denmark
  • Kadi Ristal - Germany
  • Henry Leppnurm - US
  • Kaupo Kaldmäe - Latvia
    • Um, was there a point to adding the member list to this VfD page? — JIP | Talk 13:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, just Hoary asked about nation.
  • Delete. There is already an article about the original band, from which some of this article's content was copied (see The Flowers of Romance (band)). And there is already an article on Tony Blackplait, who is a member of the "2nd era" Flowers of Romance. I'm not sure the new band is notable enough to have a separate article beyond Tony Blackplait. In any case it should not be in the same article with the original band. I've seen nothing (beyond Blackplait's own claims) that the two bands have anything in common besides the name. Comment: I've been following the edits (see relevant talk pages) at The Flowers of Romance (band) and Tony Blackplait. The latter is a musician, who may or may not have made the personal acquaintance of Sid Vicious, claiming to belong to both bands. Whenever I disputed this, the anonymous editor removed my templates, but at least removed or reworded the claims at the same time. Now that he has removed the "vfd" template from the article I'm no longer sure this guy's playing fairly. BTW I'm pretty sure all the anonymous edits (both to here and the articles themselves) are the same person, connecting via Starman ES Starman AS in Estonia. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Another comment: FWIW This probably could have been handled as a merge and redirect to the older article, rather than a VfD. If I had seen it myself I probably would have handled it that way, but since the user put it under a different title it slipped under the radar of my watchlist. (I wonder if this was deliberate? Similar variations on the name were already redirects.) As I mentioned, I'd been watching the other article, and the previous edits there are essentially the same content as this one. Back to the day job, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello, I'm TL (I) of the F. I'm sorry about the vfd. The information in the article is allright. But you can remove or delete it if you think so. Best!

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Design Resource

  • Del. An attempt of web directory, IMO. Mikkalai 08:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete after integrating the resources listed into the "See also" section of the "Design" article, if appropriate. --Smithfarm 17:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, what? Useless thing. Delete - David Gerard 17:18, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 10:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Halas

Article fails to establish notability. RickK 09:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. Stanley C. Moore Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering and Professor of Chemistry - Faculty entry [9]. Two entries in LOC, [10]. Published in a number of peer-reviewed journals, [11]. Apparently she was co-awarded 2003 "Best Discovery" Award for research into cancer-fighting gold nanoparticles, see [12]. Megan1967 10:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand to mention cancer-fighting gold nanoparticles. Kappa 11:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be notable in nanotechnology. Capitalistroadster 15:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it'd be real helpful for those putting the above notes to put them in the article ... - David Gerard 17:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note. I have expanded the article mentioning her invention of the nanoshell and her 1987 work in developing a "dark pulse" soliton. Hat-tip to Megan1967 for the information. Capitalistroadster 05:23, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 10:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies

Another odd book article that isn't an encyclopedia article, nor a book review. RickK 09:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • It *is* odd. It seems to be just a compilation of famous thinkers' views; on that basis, Delete. Lacrimosus 10:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The book was widely reviewed so it's actually quite notable. I've trimmed the article down to a stub. Hopefully someone else can build it up into a proper article.--Lee Hunter 15:09, 19 Mar 2005
  • Keep - David Gerard 17:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, what? It looks like promotion as it stands now. However, as Google and Amazon agree with Hunter, keep (and maybe add a redirect from The Party's Over). Radiant_* 19:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Seems to be noteworthy book. Capitalistroadster 21:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Noteworthy book, and useful as an entry point to further Wikipedia reading on peak oil and related topics. FreplySpang 16:58, 21 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. jni 13:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Griffith

Article does not establish notability. RickK 09:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I am not convinced he did anything beyond that one stated task. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One bit of artwork, and nothing else to state? Needs more note than that to warrant an article. His creating the visuals is already noted on the article on the EP, so no merge required. Average Earthman 14:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So what? - David Gerard 17:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to establish notability. VladMV ٭ talk 18:17, 24 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. jni 13:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diminor

Vanity band listing. Created by User:Christhomson. No listing at allmusic.com. RickK 10:29, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A remarkable band. Oddly fantastic , the author who is king of the world added a link to this article claiming Diminor to be one of the best bands in the Shetland Islands, but then removed it. Their website appears to be a blank page. -- Hadal 10:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 11:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 11:10, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without third-party verifiable evidence of anyone caring - David Gerard 17:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wanted to make a page on Wikipedia, it was the only thing I could think of offhand. Please delete. My apologies. Christhomson 00:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. VladMV ٭ talk 18:14, 24 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. jni 13:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sgt. pepper´s band

Obscure South American Beatles tribute band. Hard to tell whether or not is really notable. Lacrimosus 10:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete if notability is not forthcoming; otherwise move to a better title. Lacrimosus 10:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 11:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like vanity, and its a copy/paste job too. Hedley 15:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non notable. --Anonymous Cow 17:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent verifiability for non-vanity release of those two CDs - David Gerard 17:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though a redirect to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band might not be a bad idea. -R. fiend 18:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If they're a Beatles tribute band, shouldn't they be called Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, not Sgt. pepper´s [sic] band? — JIP | Talk 18:31, 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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 10:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skyrim

  • Fictional region in an RPG. Lacrimosus 10:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, pretty big article, seems to be in several games of a series. Kappa 11:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I fear - David Gerard 17:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, major part of a major (if somewhat outdated) series of games. Radiant_* 19:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and cleanup. Megan1967 02:36, 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 - redirected - SimonP 14:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Villèle

  1. Jean-Baptiste Guillaume Joseph, comte de Villèle was on wiki en.
  2. A french user translate it into french => fr:Villèle
  3. An english wikipedian translate fr:Villèle into en:Villèle.

I'm sorry, but I think the more conveniant is simply to delete this new page now (and explain first to the translator). fr:Yug

This vfd started by 82.253.57.188. No vote from me. —Korath (Talk) 15:14, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as duplicated content. If it's a straight double-translation, there's nothing new in the article, and authorship is not in the new article's history anyway. Chris 16:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete - redirect to proper title to discourage recreation. If a redirect had been there in the first place, this article would never have been created - David Gerard 17:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per David. DaveTheRed 18:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would probably delete first and then redirect, to prevent keeping inaccurate authorship info. Chris 18:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now and Redirect, that was my idear. fr:Yug

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alana Nobbs

Any such death is tragic, of course, but Wikipedia is not intended as a memorial. Average Earthman 12:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Tragic indeed, but unfortunately that doesn't warrant an article in an encyclopedia. Gently delete. Mgm|(talk) 14:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur, delete. Out of curiosity, what is a gentle delete? Radiant_* 19:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and lay some flowers at the article's grave. Chris 16:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a memorial and no independent verifiability - David Gerard 17:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sad but non-notable. VladMV ٭ talk 18:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but nobody cares since I'm a loser User:Frenchman113

Sorry For Your Loss, But Delete to the piece of work who wrote, "lay some flowers at the article's grave," you are an insensitive brute. You should be ashamed. SusanaeIII

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record, my count on this discussion was 22 clear "delete" votes, 9 "keep" votes and one ambiguous vote. I exercised my discretion and counted the one anonymous vote. The tone and context made it clear that this was not an attempt by a sockpuppet to bias the outcome of the vote. Despite the confusion over the various versions of this article, it is clear to me that all the voters in this decision were basing their decisions on the current version and were not merely reacting to the "out-of-process" accusations. Rossami (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 14:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third Week

How to article on installing Linux alongside Windows. Part of a series of articles by this user who seems to be using wikipedia as a hosting service for a class he's giving. I recommend deletion. Mgm|(talk) 14:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete User has already been told to go to Wikibooks instead of here, so transwiki is no longer an option. Chris 15:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 17:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:07, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I would have speedy deleted it if it hadn't been listed here, since First Week and Second Week have already been speedy deleted. I have tried to communicate with this editor about what he's doing here, but he won't respond. RickK 05:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per above. VladMV ٭ talk 18:32, 24 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 14:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Michael Keyes

Looks like a hoax to me. Firstly, the anon creator has regularly vandalised in the past. Secondly, a programme he apparently 'hosted' called 'BBC: 50 Years of Television' would have been made in 1986, twenty two years after he died (according to Sewer Rats). Thirdly, back in January I reverted his edit to Family Feud, as it mentioned a supposed programme on a television channel seven years before it began transmission. Fourtly, a Google search for '"John Michael Keyes" Sewer Rats' ([13]) returns zero hits. BillyH 13:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax - David Gerard 17:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, cannot establish notability, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:43, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sewer Rats

Same reasons as John Michael Keyes really- looks like a hoax, anon user who's regularly vandalised in the past, there was no 'John Michael Keyes' in Sixteen Candles, and a Google search returns nothing. BillyH 14:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax - David Gerard 17:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 02:45, 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drasticity.org

If the word isn't yet recognized in the English language surely an organization promoting it using Wikipedia isn't either. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 14:25, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity spam. Chris 15:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drastically - David Gerard 17:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Linguisticscruft? DaveTheRed 18:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 02:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam about a non-notable website dealing with a neologism. Thryduulf 16:18, 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 14:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deeper high

A metal band with no released album, I come across no Google hits for them. ([14] ([15]) - Seth Ilys 14:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Unless someone can provide coverage by a major music magazine or prove extensive national touring I'll have to vote delete because of the google hits. Mgm|(talk) 14:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without other independently verifiable evidence anyone cares - David Gerard 17:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, nonnotable. I'm originally from this area. It's a nobody band from a nobody area that noone's ever heard of. The fact that they've got a website pointed to by a cjb.net redirect, and their list of albums currently sums to zero should mean something. - rernst 14:13, 21 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 14:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Santoonie

This seems to be a hoax article. There is a Santoonie Corporation, a tiny company that does some kind of interactive fiction, but the rest of the article seems bogus. --Lee Hunter 14:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks like a private joke to me. --Smithfarm 16:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke/hoax. The "Santoonie Corporation" for interactive fiction is an imaginary company created by an "A. P. Hill". A few years ago he/they released their first game ("Amissville") and A. P. Hill kept trolling about it on the interactive fiction newsgroups, creating several pseudonyms for himself and annoying everybody. This resulted in several parodies of the game, which was itself rather bad. They have since released a few other bad games, gaining a dishonorable mention in interactive fiction history. Eric119 17:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 17:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Santoonie hits the new low. Grue 20:13, 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 - redirected - SimonP 14:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prorogued

Stub dicdef. Content already covered in Wikipedia JeremyA 16:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - David Gerard 17:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Prorogation Kappa 19:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Kappa. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Just Delete. Words that are not worth their own entry in the dictionary are not worth a redirect in Wikipedia. This is just a regularly-derived inflected form of the word "prorogue" and means exactly what you'd expect it to mean. The dictionary just lists it under "prorogue" without comment. A redirect is not needed; it's almost inconceivable that anyone would search on "prorogued" rather than "prorogue." 02:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Dpbsmith typed one too many tildes Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC))
    • So when someone puts "Parliament was prorogued" in an article, it should show up as a red link? Kappa 10:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No, that's what pipes are for: Parliament was [[prorogation|prorogued]] will do it. If the article were under prorogue, you wouldn't even need a pipe: [[prorogue]]d would work. I repeat: if it doesn't even merit a dictionary entry, how can it merit an encyclopedia article? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The pipe technique is only slightly inconvenient for someone who knows about both the technique and the article prorogation. For someone who doesn't know about one or both, it's pretty much useless. Common typos don't deserve articles either, but we still redirect them. Kappa 09:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to prorogation. Lacrimosus 21:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to prorogation. Why dilute Wikipedia content like this so that people can safely ignore the editing system? -Joshuapaquin 18:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Squid hickeys

Probably a nice bunch of folks, but not notable. Band vanity. --BD2412 03:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - David Gerard 17:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to establish notability would be an understatement. --Smithfarm 13:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quoting from the deletion page: "Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nu-Metal With Progressive Influences

Invented nonexistent genre. Google [16] turns up us and one mirror of our article on Mudvayne. Therefore, appears to be original research and hence deletion material - David Gerard 17:02, 19 Mar 2005

  • I agree. Although music genres are decidedly nebulous and hard to tell whether they deserve an article (or whether they're original research, for that matter), this one seems like a clear case. Delete. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an actual genre of music. DaveTheRed 17:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No more a genre than Pub Rock with Doo-Wop Influences or Chinese Opera with Black Metal Influences. We can mix and match all we want but it isn't going to create a new genre that easily. -R. fiend 18:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a distinct genre of music; at least not one that can be easily distinguished from unhyphenated nu metal. How one could define Mudvayne as NMWPI, but define clearly prog-influenced bands like System of a Down, Helmet or Tool as not NMWPI simply escapes me. Delete, and merge the two bands listed here back into List of Nu metal musical groups. Bearcat 01:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nucruft. Chris 17:48, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasThe result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin Heffernan

What we have here seems to be a guy who shot a couple of videos which were shown at a few festivals. No distribution and no reported box office gross. "Expiration" was released on DVD, but as far as I can tell Hefferman released it himself, making it the equivalent of a vanity press book. Doesn't seem to be at amazon anyway. I'd call this article vanity or self promotion, but if Hefferman wrote it I'd expect he'd have more to say than this. Anyway, delete this as another guy with a video camera trying to get a start in the film industry. Good luck Gavin, come back when you succeed. -R. fiend 17:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, and I know you get a lot of, erm, unusual people on IMDb but both Gavin Heffernan's page and his films have armies of sockpuppets in them, all active around May 2004. This is probably another example of extensive self promotion. Xezbeth 18:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Spinboy 01:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Winner of the Grand Jury Prize at the 2004 Canadian Filmmaker's Festival. Notable enough for me. Keep. Bearcat 01:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure. I don't know much about the Canadian Filmmaker's Festival, but some of these festivals are pretty small and many of the entries win some sort of award. It's not unheard of for someone to bring along enough friends that they can stuff the ballot box, or winning by being the local favorite. We're not talking the Palme d'Or or Cannes or anything. I'll look into it a bit though. -R. fiend 02:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above. --Daniel11 02:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable or vanity (and the link on the Canadian Filmmaker's Festival fails to establish notability thereof, so presently fails to sway my opinion on this). Radiant_* 12:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as the festival looks fairly large, with some fairly major sponsors. Burgundavia 17:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I seem to disagree on the definition of "large". According to the festival's website, it lasts four days (in 2005, from April 7 to 10); only 10 feature films are involved - this year, Ivan Reitman's "Meatballs" will be shown, evidently hours-concours; it has no tradition either: the first edition took place last year, when the winner was Hefferman. I'm sorry, but IMHO more than this award is required to make someone notable. VladMV ٭ talk 18:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you find out how many film were in it last year? If it's only 10 this year I suspect it may well have been fewer last year. Coming in best of 6 or 7 is not a terribly great accomplishment. -R. fiend 20:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find anything on the official website, I suppose the contents from last year's festival were removed. This page lists the films: they were also presented in four days. Assuming some of those are documentary features, I think it's reasonable to suppose at most some 10 feature films were competing. VladMV ٭ talk 21:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While the filmmaker may oneday be notable, the current work done to date is not notable enough for inclusion. The article can be re-entered at such a time as more noteworthy accomplishments have been made. --Lloydd 04:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was wondering, in general should not self-financed undistributed movies be treated much the same as vanity published books? I don't see a huge difference, except perhaps that a movie made along these lines is more likely to be purchased by a distributor than a self-published book is likely to be purchased by a publisher. Given that I'm not sure that's true, and that until such a movie is purchased the matter in inconsequential, I'm tempted to think movies like this, and the people who make them need to be held to some standard beyond some award at a small festival. Even the winners at Sundance and the like are basically significant only because the award guarantees them a commercial release. -R. fiend 23:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really. While the commercial aspect of cinema clearly is quite important, you'll find that there's a vast amount of interest in the art in general. For instance, google the indy in question, Gavin Heffernan, and you'll find quite a lot of hits, with many reviews of his commercially undistributed movies. --Daniel11 00:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arsenal/Surrealist Subversion

Delete Non-notable Advertising and Spam see what Wikipedia is not. Google Search for Arsenal/Surrealist Subversion only brings up 274 Hits for this product that is sold through commercial outlet AK Press. Spam.Classicjupiter2 20:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, though I should not really be voting on this because there is no submitter. What is the argument about this being sold through commercial outlet? If we list for deletion every magazine and journal thus sold, we are going to have some ridiculous results. I am on my way to list TIME Magazine on VfD, as it is sold through commercial outlets known as "bookstores". --Daniel C. Boyer 19:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I forgot to sign.Classicjupiter2 20:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Or to format properly. What is it with you and surrealist articles? - David Gerard 20:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vexatious nomination - David Gerard 20:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
David, Vexatious vote. Stay on topic and look at the information.Classicjupiter2 20:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, ad and/or NN. Radiant_* 11:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete substub with no potential. Surrealcruft. Chris 17:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity ad. Megan1967 07:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ HELO 22:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of deadly cults

This page keeps being redirected to the List of purported cults. I propose to delete this page , and merge any useful info into their own articles, or into cult suicide for the following reasons:

  1. There are articles on each and every one of the groups indentified in the article;
  2. The List of purported cults already lists them;
  3. It is POV to redirect List of deadly cults to an article that lists many groups that do not fall into that category whatsoever.

--Zappaz 20:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge this list into the existing entry under cult suicide. The information is potentially useful. Arkyan 22:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. --Zappaz
  • Merge anything useable. Megan1967 02:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The title is inherently POVTjc 07:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the content to the appropriate separate articles and then Delete this title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of purported cults. -Willmcw 21:55, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect: Zappaz, can we redirect to a sub-heading within List of purported cults? And what's wrong with having a redirect, anyway? If anyone searches for "deadly cults", they'll ran smack into a neutral, balanced article that clearly distinguishes between "cults who committed murder or suicide" and ordinary NRMs. (I'm not offended at all to have people who mistakenly think the Unification Church is a cult, click their way to info on my group via "deadly cults". They might even realize their mistake. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:08, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unpurposed.com

Vanity, at best. Not encyclopedic. --ElTyrant 20:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Pure and utter nonsense that is made by a team of anons. Alexa couldn't even get a reading on this webpage. Do we really need a page for every single webpage out there?CryptoStorm 06:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Robinoke 22:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silly. Author, I say to you now that calling any creative work 'the attack of the giant mutant etc' is an unfunny cliche. It would be an interesting topic for a short article, though - the ostentatious title formulation is a clear reference to 1950s American sci-fi b-movies, but as with modern-day references to film noir, the people who use it nowadays are generally referencing 1980s recreations of the 1950s originals. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and then delete again - David Gerard 18:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, more high-school-vanitycruft. VladMV ٭ talk 19:05, 24 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 15:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Independent Federation of the Republic

Minor online RPG/micronation. Orphan article, Five google hits and apparently only 26 members. Non-notable/vanity. - Seth Ilys 20:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They've also been operating for well over a year, and have over 8,000 collective posts on both of their forums. This by anon 67.4.101.30, the original creator of the article. VladMV ٭ talk 19:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not an orphan article, I was the original editor that wrote the first draft, although anonymously - crazynas 00:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) This by same IP, now registered as Crazynas. Article + VfD vote are user's first edits. VladMV ٭ talk 19:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all fictional micronations. RickK 05:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, completely not notable. Lacrimosus 06:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and delete again just for good measure - David Gerard 18:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Jonathunder 04:00, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let it grow from minor to major and it'll deserve an article. VladMV ٭ talk 19:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete looking around wikipeida some more, I see that this article doesn’t deserve to be here yet, hopefully someday, I'm the original editor of this article Crazynas 01:20, 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 15:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dolly O'Neal with TubbyTalk

Apparently, this was a public access tv show in Cambridge, Mass. I think we can go with non-notable and I think gobblygook works too. --Woohookitty 23:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Needs more pastel boxes too before being killed. Anyone want to add {{unreferenced}}? - David Gerard 18:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done. --Woohookitty 21:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-notable nonsense, and a frequent intrusion into other articles verging on vandalism - see how many different Wikipedia articles the clones have found this in [17]. Once deleted, delete from any article it appears in again. --Henrygb 04:16, 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 - kept - SimonP 15:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Dow Christian Academy

Non-notable school which had one extremely minor news reference in December 2004. DS 21:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

      • GRider has made an attempt at vote-swinging for this nomination [18].
  • Delete, not notable, possible school vanity. Megan1967 03:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would vote keep on any half-decent school article with a reference. This is so not it. - David Gerard 18:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. School vanity. DaveTheRed 06:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Make a mention in McDonough, Georgia and delete - Skysmith 11:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. School vanity; not notable. Jonathunder 04:01, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 06:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • For the record, it appears that Yuckfoo votes keep on everything.
      • So? thats his/her right to do. Keep all schools are valid. not-notable is not a valid VFD reasoning.  ALKIVAR™ 21:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, notability is a de facto deletion criterion. And people are supposed to explain the reason for their voting. Radiant_* 08:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep SchmuckyTheCat 00:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's another step towards the completion of the world's first global education encyclopedia. Wincoote 21:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with the rest of the keepers. --Dittaeva 21:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • note this is at least the third school VfD where Dittaeva has made this exact same vote.
      • Well of course. GRider has been listing VfDs on schools on the pages of school inclusionists, including Dittaeva. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Arguing that voting consistantly makes one's vote invalid? How absurd. --L33tminion | (talk) 00:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete merge anything notable at a community level onto the apropriate article, this school doens't merit an article of its own. Thryduulf 22:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. David Gerard says delete, the end is near. :-) Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 23:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Extremely minor, even with bomb-story padding. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, spammer-supported. —Korath (Talk) 02:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All public institutions belong in Wikipedia.--Gene_poole 02:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, same reason. --Zero 02:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Contains interesting information - Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 02:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain for the moment. Private acadamies aren't on the same level as high schools. --Andylkl (talk) 04:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge in more info related to the bomb incident. —RaD Man (talk) 08:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a trash heap. Quality over quantity. Radiant_* 08:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge info, WINP. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. If the existence of the school is not disputed, then there is no reason that this is not a valid article topic. Notability is subjective, but schools with more than a few students should automatically pass the test. Wiki is not paper. Someone please wake me up when there is finally a policy vote about keeping school articles. ~leif ☺ HELO 20:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a cut-and-paste vote and should be discounted as such. VfDs are about the article in question not policies. Thryduulf 00:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. When there are a bunch of articles on the same subject (schools) being deleted for the same reason ("non notable"), how would you rather people vote to keep all of them? Should the exact same reasons be rephrased for each article? Or are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to vote at all, because I found out about this vfd via GRider's "vote-swining" comments elsewhere? In either case, you are wrong, there is no policy that says my vote here shouldn't count and I highly doubt there ever will be one. ~leif ☺ HELO 00:43, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • The vote is about whether this school is notable, not whether schools gerneraly are notable. The exact same vote on several articles suggests to me that you haven't read the article in question. Whether you have or you haven't that is the impression I get. For the record my opinion is that many schools merit a mention on the article about the community they're in (or if that doesn't have its own artcile, then in the section deailing with the community in whatever article that is on). The most noteworthy schools do deserve articles of there own, just like most songs only merit a mention on the articles of the artist who sang them, and particluarly noteworthy songs ger an article about them. Thryduulf 01:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • For the record, we have a community music project which catalogs commercial music albums far and wide, complete with track listings. There are even certain exceptions where a single song title warrants its own article independent of the album. Each of these albums merit their own article as much as any public educational institution does, IMHO. And don't even get me started on the so-called Pokemon Comparative Notability Test. —RaD Man (talk) 05:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • The difference is, there's some music, somewhere, that even they're willing to admit doesn't belong. —Korath (Talk) 06:54, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
              • Hey now... I'll be the first to admit that most daycares don't belong, if that's what you're getting at.  :-p —RaD Man (talk) 07:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • I really hope I never have to quote you on that. :) —Korath (Talk) 09:39, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Mystache 16:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Noteable. --L33tminion | (talk) 00:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • All schools and other public institutions and facilities such as churches, railway stations, post offices, shopping malls, roads and bridges are notable, without exception. They all have a history that is worth documenting, and that history is always important to someone - even if it's not important to you. This is an encyclopedia people! Keep. --Centauri 06:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even with the pipe bomb, it's not that notable. Saopaulo1 07:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expandible - I'd be curious to know a bit more about the school's religious and educational philosophies, and history. Samaritan 03:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr 12:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep-Cooter08865

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Brown

Biographical entry for Lance Brown. Libertarian Party activist in California. Not yet 35, it looks like he is running a vanity campaign for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination for 2008. Article doesn't establish notability, and as far as I can tell, neither do the Google hits. Looks like he is using Wikipedia for self-promotion, although it could be an associate doing it. Someone has also listed him as a candidate in U.S. presidential election, 2008 Delete as not notable. --BM 21:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn prez wannabe. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 3390 Google hits is notable [19] - Jord 21:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not really. Check out what the hits actually are. From the ones I saw, they are mostly links to his blog. One does not find media interviews, biographical articles, etc, about this person. Blogging has a tendency to really run up the Google hits. If you think these Google hits indicate notability, it should be an easy matter for you to find something in one of those hits that actually establishes notability. --BM 22:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment though the 2004 Libertarian nominee garnered about 90000 google hits, if you filter out the countless list of candidates and election results pages he gets only 15,000 [20]... If a first time candidate for the nomination over three years from the election can get 3390 google hits to 15000 for the past nominee I think that is very notable!. - Jord 22:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 22:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite to stop it being an advert. Robinoke 22:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Jord. Q0 22:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In regard to the comment about Lance Brown or one of his associates using Wikipedia for self-promotion: I am the one who created this article and I am the one who added Lance Brown to the U.S. presidential election, 2008 page. I am neither Lance Brown nor an am I an associate of his. I found his campaign through the web in 2001. About Lance Brown not yet being 35, I don't think this should be an issue since he will be 35 by 2008. As for notability, I am not sure how to varify whether not not Lance Brown is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I've tried looking through Wikipedia's policies about this issue, but the actual criteria seems somewhat vague. In my opinion, people prominent in their own local juristiction should be included, and Lance Brown has appeared regularly on local television [21] and he is chairman of his own county's Libertarian Party. Also, I do believe his campaign is real, and I don't think it is a vanity campaign. I believe even if he loses the primary, running in the presidential primary as a third party candidate is notable enough for an article. Q0 04:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. His only claim to fame is his unverified (and at this point unverifiable) claim that he intends to run for the US Presidency in 2008. I can find no other evidence of notability. The google test is skewed in this case by his blog. Rossami (talk) 06:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-elected = non-notable, Delete. Radiant_* 11:29, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Spam, spam, spam, spam, everybody loves spam! Delete. - David Gerard 18:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • When he actually runs, if anyone votes for him, and/or if he accomplishes somthing, then he deserves an article, maybe. Now? Nope. Delete. --Calton | Talk 12:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with everything Calton said. Jonathunder 04:03, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. VladMV ٭ talk 19:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment [22] google search for "lance brown" and libertarian, excluding the freedom2008.com domain (the domain of his blog) yields 1040 results. Q0 19:50, 24 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. jni 13:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Torrey_Review

Non-notable Nomination by Stellertony vlad_mv 03:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Votes must be signed to take effect. Enochlau 22:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable. Enochlau 22:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, student vanity. Megan1967 06:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to school to discourage recreation - David Gerard 18:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. High school newspapers are not notable. Gamaliel 19:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and the article on the non-notable high school which produced it. Jonathunder 04:36, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 13:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BS I-75 (Mackinaw City)

Appears to be complete speculation. [23] says nothing about it. --SPUI (talk) 22:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Do individual business spurs or routes even warrant their own Wiki entry? Merge at best with I-75 if this is anything more than local speculation, otherwise delete it. Arkyan 22:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just cleaning up the poorly written, often misnamed, stubby little articles created by User:SamuraiClinton about actual, if not particularly notable, topics is enough to keep several people busy. No need to complicate matters with speculative entities. older≠wiser 22:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speculation. Gazpacho 06:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 06:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a precognition database - David Gerard 18:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Come on people, common sense. Lilyana
    • This account was created today, and has been used six times, each a vote in a VfD. (The signature is manual, and takes you to an article-space name.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:49, 28 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 - redirected - SimonP 15:15, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hydric

This was kinda hanging around in CSD as a transwikied dicdef. Current content is "Hydric, the opposite of xeric. Refers to a wet ecosystem.". Can't really think of any potential to be an article, but no vote. Kappa 22:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Adjective → noun redirect to whichever biome is the most appropriate. Uncle G 22:32, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hydrogen. Hydric essentially means "containing hydrogen". Megan1967 06:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The current version is immediately deletable as the uncompleted last step of a successful transwiki. However, Megan's suggestion is probably better. Redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I really don't like the way anyone can get any article deleted without debate just by adding a wiktionary tag. Kappa 09:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: The point is that it's not deleted, it has been moved. Moves are reversible and do not destroy history. If a transwiki turns out to be controversial, it can be reverted by any reader/editor. The "deletion at the end of the transwiki process" is an artificial artifact of the mechanics of a pagemove across the Wikipedia/Wiktionary boundary. Rossami (talk)
        • How is it reversible? By VfU? Kappa 02:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Oh ok, anyone can transwiki manually. Seems like a lot of hard work though, especially if the other guy is using a bot. Kappa 02:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually it's the addition of a speedy-deletion tag that gets an article deleted without debate (even though "already exists on Wiktionary" isn't a speedy-deletion criterion), as both you and I have been attempting to counteract. The fact that some articles have had {{move to Wiktionary}} affixed to them for years is ample evidence that the addition of that tag does not get an article deleted at all, either with or without debate. Uncle G 07:32, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
        • Rossami's interpretation is that deletion is "the last step in a successful transwiki". That's also my interpretation, it says "move" not "copy". I've seen plenty of things show up in WP:CSD tagged with "transferred to wiktionary or something like that, and they got deleted. Kappa 09:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment: This is probably bigger than one deletion vote. Let's move the discussion to talk. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have run across the use of hydric to mean a wet ecosystem in the context of mine reclamation. --Smithfarm 12:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline delete as present version. Could theoretically be an article, but this is a dicdef - David Gerard 18:59, 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 - should be tranwikied - SimonP 15:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to program in object-oriented languages

How-to; non-encyclopedic. Fredrik | talk 22:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to wikibooks if there's not something about object oriented programming already. Mgm|(talk) 23:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Megan1967 06:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - David Gerard 18:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks already has a book on Object oriented programming on its IT bookshelf, and has had for almost a year now (5 months prior to the creation of this article). This article provides nothing of value for addition to the Wikibooks book. Delete. Uncle G 21:27, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreeing with uncle g. DaveTheRed 06:31, 21 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. jni 13:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michel De Caso

  • Delete. Vanity, advert, unnotable. Enochlau 22:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. User 195.93.102.69 has removed the VfD notice. Megan1967 06:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity,etcTjc 07:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline delete. At least could do with linkable refs - David Gerard 18:59, 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 - deleted - SimonP 15:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duran Parsi

Non-notable author - orphan article. Barely turns up on Google [24], and while book exists [25] there seems to be nothing special about it. Delete as non-notable. --Henrygb 22:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity published and the Amazon reviews read like spam too - David Gerard 19:00, 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 - deleted - SimonP 15:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dwerryhouse

Information and speculation about an uncommon surname. Orphan and deadend. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Delete as unencyclopedic. --Henrygb 23:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • move to Wiktionary. Information may be useful to somebody. --Smithfarm 11:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Do they want surnames? - David Gerard 19:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would say redirect if we had any articles on anyone called Dwerryhouse, but Google tells me it's yet to find the word in Wikipedia! - David Gerard 19:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a surnames dictionary. I have my doubts that wiktionary wants it, either. RickK 22:14, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per RicK. VladMV ٭ talk 22:26, 27 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 15:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictari

Non-notable. Delete. Alexa test 346,921; Google test 367. No reason for notability known by me or noted in the article. Page creator 81.178.3.151 (talk · contributions) has spammed the link to the website on a lot of unrelated articles (not in itself a reason for deletion, but shows bad faith). cesarb 23:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Notable communities should really get more google hits. The spamming also causes me to suspect advertising. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 23:59, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on evidence presented, I concur. Delete. Rossami (talk) 06:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without better independent evidence that anyone cares - David Gerard 19:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: 82.69.54.206 (talk · contributions) has also been spamming the link to other unrelated articles, and reverted the neutering of the link on Pictari. Perhaps the link should be added to the list of spammed links? --cesarb 01:25, 30 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_19_77a2.html"