Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 2

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. sjorford →•← 13:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor of Galway

Galway (Ireland) has had a number of mayors since 1484, two of which are listed here. Attempted stub-list of historic trivia. Radiant! 10:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Radiant! 10:11, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, good stub to complete, everybody can be interested one day or the other in mayors of Galway. --Pgreenfinch 11:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep mayors. Kappa 14:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: there are articles on mayors of other cities, and this information is notable and verfiable. Let this article develop. Kevintoronto 14:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Does not meet basic deletion criteria.--Gene_poole 22:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Barest stub now, but eminently encyclopaedic and does not meet criteria - David Gerard 00:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a stub, but stubs are not automatically deletion candidates. Many other cities have a list of mayors article; often this has a "List of Mayors of X" title when there is nothing special to say, but "Mayor of X" articles also exist when some information about the office itself and its changing nature in history might need to be mentioned, which seems to be the case here. The current population of Galway is certainly quite small, but the city does have a historical significance considerably greater than its current small population would indicate. The article on the city itself is moderately large, and a mayor or list of mayors article is certainly warranted. -- Curps 04:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a reasonably notable position and allows us to outline history. Capitalistroadster 09:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This can easily be expanded, and it is likely it will be at some stage. The city and her mayors have had quite a long history. In fact, there is an entire book on the subject: "Role of Honour: The Mayors of Galway 1485-2001", William Henry, 2002. zoney ♣ talk 00:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Zoney, like to see some one with knowledge on the subject expand it. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Procedural query Is it the done thing in such cases (VfD nomination withdrawn) to remove the VfD notice on the page concerned? I'd have thought it was preferable for appearance's sakes, but do we need to wait for an admin to declare the vote closed and archive? Alai 06:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep not a high standard article but has potential to become something. Djegan 16:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, its Fergananim here. I'm the guy that started all the fuss by attempting to write all this. Thank you all for your keep votes. I cannot always write the likes of this up as often as I would like due to sometimes severe health problems. So, patience please. I promise I will make it, and others likes it, well worth the wait. But by all means, please add comments, critisism and/or advice as and when you each see fit. Thanks again. Fergananim

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This page cannot be deleted because of block-compress errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mcrae

• Keep - The factual base appears to be corrrect. When have we, as a community, decided not to include surnames as a linkage to historical fact? Do a search under the surname Smith and you will find multiple entries in Wikipedia.Sharon 15:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Surnames are only kept as disambiguation pages. RickK 22:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Radiant! 10:24, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Not noteworthy Nick04 19:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. a North American ancestor of a clan? Descendant, perhaps. But Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. RickK 23:28, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a very high bar for inclusion of surnames; this doesn't meet it. —Korath (Talk) 10:23, Mar 3, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This page cannot be deleted because of block-compress errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Menya zovot shnur

Russian song titled 'my name is shnur'. Radiant! 10:40, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Wrong title (should be "zovut"), not that notable as the songs go, especially to English-speaking readers, delete. Grue 12:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep popular songs. Whatever is relevant to Russian-speaking readers also belongs in the English one. Kappa 13:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe only internationally-popular songs should be kept. Substubs on things that are relevant to <5% of readers are the last thing Wikipedia needs. Grue 18:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Grue. Delete. RickK 23:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable sub-stub. Megan1967 23:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I agree, Delete unless someone can expand considerably on what is there - right now there's not even enough detail to categorise properly (and, yes, it should be 'zovut' or possibly 'zovoot'). --Moochocoogle 02:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd not object to an article on a famous or notable song, but article makes no case that this one is either. -- Infrogmation 17:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd be happy to see a worthwhile article on this topic. I can't be made to care either way about a minimal stub on something not obviously notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:14, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meredith Williams

College professor that wrote a number of articles. Radiant! 10:46, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Published a book with Routledge, one of the world's leading academic publishers. That in itself should qualify her for notability, although a quick web search does not reveal much more than that. Except that the text is a verbatim copy from [4] (copyvio or by the author?), so I'll abstain for now. / Alarm 18:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even if after copyvio issue is resolved. Non-notable professor. Gamaliel 18:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Copyvio needs resolving, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if copyvio is replaced by decent article or even stub. The fact that she has written a book and a booklength study and that she is Professor at John Hopkins University appear to indicate notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 10:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep when copyvio can be cleaned up. Published with Routledge is plenty encyclopedia-worthy - David Gerard 01:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Anthony Walker

Son of a spy. Radiant! 10:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and/or Redirect to the John Anthony Walker page. It's redundant with the information already there. RJH 17:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. HyperZonk^talk 17:46, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems to have originated from a link from the Michael Walker disambiguation page, that was added long before the article was created. If article is deleted, the disambiguation page's mention of him and the link to John Anthony Walker should be kept (since it's useful), even if the link to his name is removed. Too unsure about his notability to vote, though. / Alarm 18:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to John Anthony Walker: if anyone wants details on the event, that's the page where the context is. This sounds really familiar; I think we've dealt with this or a similarly named article before. I can't find it, though. Joyous 00:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate/redundant information. Megan1967 03:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 13:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Micchami Dukkadam

Single verse in sanskrit. Radiant! 10:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep by analogy with Goodbye, Mazel Tov, and Salaam alaikum which should all have articles too. Kappa 14:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No, they shouldn't. They should be in Wiktionary. This, on the other hand should be merged to Jainism and then deleted. --Angr 23:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What, we should have an article on every phrase in every language? Don't take Kappa up on the suggestion. RickK 23:32, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, we should have articles for phrases used as religious greetings. Kappa 03:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 55 Google hits, do not transwiki to the English Wiktionary - While I would agree that some "cross-over" words like Verboten should be inclusive, this is just a phrase in a foreign language that has no currency in the English language. Megan1967 00:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What's wrong with transwiking it? Kappa 03:34, 3 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robbie weddell

Non-notable vanity article. Person gets one google hit on list of names site. Written in unencyclopedic style. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - same IP dump many substub articles, obviously a student adding nonsense article about his friends/classmates. IMHO can be speedied. andy 10:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. Radiant! 11:49, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:11, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 22:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 02:56, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

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

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

20:10, 2 Mar 2005 Dpbsmith deleted Muich (Newbie test. Abridged content: "Muich is a food made of boredom... it was founded by two teenagers in British Columbia.")

Deathphoenix 02:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muich

A homemade recipe contributed by bored teenagers. -- Longhair 11:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 11:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. utcursch | talk 12:45, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Entire content of deleted article is shown below: Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Muich is a food made of boredom.

It's made with eggs, meat, onions, garlic and any type of seasoning.

Then it is fried in a wok.

This was founded by two teenager in British Columbia, Canada.

• Speedy deleted as newbie test. Even though I love the poetry of the sentence "Muich is a food made of boredom" and even though it sounds perfectly edible. Although I think it would be improved if it were made with eggs, meat, onions, garlic, and any type of reasoning. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 2 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) 15:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Micky Lee Soule

Member of a small number of bands, the best of which enjoyed "very minor fame". Radiant! 11:04, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, he's been in at least two bands containing members of Deep Purple, and The Elves apparently recorded 3 albums, meeting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines . Kappa 13:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should redirect him to The Elves then. Radiant! 14:09, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable musician with links to very notable bands. Cnwb 22:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite this article's claim, Rainbow and Deep Purple, though not mainstream pop bands by any means, certainly both had a more than ample amount of fame. Deep Purple released arguably the first real heavy metal song ever, "Smoke on the Water" in 1972, and Rainbow had at least two pretty big hits I can remember, and is well-regarded among 70s metal fans. As noted by Kappa, he meets the Notability and Music Guidelines. 23:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)Tuf-Kat
• Delete, Micky Lee Soule never played with Deep Purple and wasn't on "Smoke on the Water", he was a member of The Elves and the first incarnation of Rainbow on one album before Blackmore sacked him and then they broke it big. A minor thing, his name is Mickey Lee Soule not Micky Lee Soule. Megan1967 00:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Aah, I misread the article. No change in vote though, since I think being a member of Rainbow is enough, even if only for one album. Tuf-Kat 01:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. One of the member of the Elves or ELF was Ronnie Dio and they made two albums before that band became the first lineup of Rainbow when Blackmore recruited them for the first album. Soule then played on a Roger Glover album and toured as part of the Ian Gillan band. See interview on Dio the early years for details. [5] Megan is correct when she notes that the article should be renamed Mickey Lee Soule. Capitalistroadster 10:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no good reason to delete - David Gerard 01:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. No allmusic.com entry, but he is listed as a member of Elf and Rainbow. Note that they list his name as Micky Lee Soule. Gamaliel 01:18, 5 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. sjorford →•← 14:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Mahonnen

Article doesn't establish any kind of notability, and neither does google. Radiant! 11:06, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) The typoed name would explain why I couldn't google him. Request withdrawn. Radiant! 10:12, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and relocate to Michael Mahonen, his correct name. RJH 17:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 00:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable. I've moved it and cleaned it up marginally. —Korath (Talk) 10:36, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form as Michael Mahonen, notable enough to have this entry on IMDB. --Deathphoenix 16:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. silsor 17:03, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 17:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I didn't watch the show, Road to Avonlea was a fairly very popular show in Canada. -- James Teterenko (talk) 05:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have to quibble with James Teterenko's use of "fairly". I hated the f*cking thing, but it was huge. Oh, and for what it's worth, MM gets hundreds of Google hits if you spell his name right...keep. Bearcat 07:26, 4 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MicroPat iOS

Internet search directory. Doesn't google. Radiant! 11:36, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, blatant wikispam for a non-notable search engine with all of eight displayed google hits. Thank the gods for nofollow, or we'd see even more of this crud. —Korath (Talk) 10:40, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blatant wikispam. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. -- EagleOne 20:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It's actually very credible, see discussion -- [XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX] Mar 11, 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

18:19, 2 Mar 2005 Jpgordon deleted Middlesex Street (Hoax)

Deathphoenix 02:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middlesex Street

What can I say... it's a street. The city is unspecified, and someone famous once lived there. Radiant! 11:38, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedily delete as a hoax. A Google search for the supposedly legendary singer/writer Yvette Henderson[6] only brings up a character in a film, and the supposed top ten hit "Bling with me tonight"[7] only matches mirrors of this article. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 12:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 13:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium Business Park, New Mumbai

A business park. That is, an area in a city where large corporation buildings stand. I don't see what's so special about that. Radiant! 11:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio of http://www.maharashtraitparks.com/itparks_mbp_locate.htm and probably more Kappa 13:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, copyright violation. Megan1967 00:18, 3 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 listed as copyvio. sjorford →•← 14:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milan Mrksich

Another college professor. Judging by the tone, the article is written by himself or one of its students. Couldn't find reference of a notable book by him. Radiant! 11:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The guy's record appears quite distinguished, even though this page currently doesn't really show it. Is that enough? Not sure. RJH 17:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Most of it is written as if the article was about his research group, not about him. Copied from [8] (copyvio or by the author himself?). Heading a research group of 20 people and having nearly a hundred peer-reviewed publications, I'd say he's notable, but the article needs to be rewritten before I go for keep. / Alarm 18:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Many, many professors have similair levels of academic accomplishment. --Holdek 21:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Now tagged as a copyvio. From what I saw at his personal website, however, he does not appear to pass the "average professor" test. I'd be inclined to delete even a non-copyvio version. Rossami (talk) 00:58, 3 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 and list for cleanup. Deathphoenix 03:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milanesa torta

Strange POV article about a sandwich... rather funny actually but I don't see it as encyclopedic. Radiant! 11:44, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Provided it's a real sandwich, I would tend to keep and fix. Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real sandwiches, and fix me one. Kappa 13:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • ) I would, but my e-mail program doesn't support culinary attachments. Radiant! 16:38, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, el notable, but needs category and dullification. :D RJH 16:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• El Keep. We have articles on club and BLT sandwiches. This gets just barely enough google hits to convince me its a real sandwich. Needs massive cleanup though DaveTheRed 21:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Recipe. — Gwalla | Talk 21:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, recipe. Megan1967 00:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This article doesn't tell the reader how to prepare the sandwich, so i think it can't be called a recipe. Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Notable food. To paraphrase Homer Simpson hmmm sandwiches. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup; this isn't a recipe, but an article about a food; I'll take your word on notability. (The article reads like a copyvio, though; does it google when translated (back) to Spanish?) —Korath (Talk) 10:48, Mar 3, 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) 15:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miguel Estrada

Lawyer. Article reads like a resume for jobhunting purposes. He has been assistant of a number of well-known offices, but hasn't himself reached a very notable position. Radiant! 11:47, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't appear famous or particularly influential. Kappa 13:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep after expansion Kappa 04:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't establish notability. Cnwb 22:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, with qualms. Estrada is notable because he was nominated as a candidate for the D.C. Circuit of the Court of Appeals. (Associated Press reports via CNN: [9], [10]). Some believed he was being groomed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Democrats filibustered his nomination vote—it's the first time in history a filibuster has been used to kill an appeals court nomination. The story was in and out of the news for about two years. The qualm(s): The article is essentially a cut and paste job from the cited 'source' at the bottom of the page [11]; that should be fixed. I don't know what the copyright status of this DOJ website is. I would guess public domain but we still should have something better than a resume. Failing to mention the nomination hearings is a woeful omission—it's probably the only reason he is notable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely keep. Famous. Will update article. Meelar (talk) 02:40, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note: expanded. Meelar (talk) 03:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This person is listed as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court. If this is deleted we may as well delete over half of all biographical articles. 129.177.61.124 08:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You will need a user name and edit history for your votes to be fully counted. Kappa 18:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • How about this? Sjakkalle 13:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His nomination as a Federal Court judge was one of the big US political issues of 2003. Likely to be nominated by the Bush administration when a Supreme Court vacancy takes place. Well done Meelar for expanding the article. Capitalistroadster 10:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Indeed the situation about him is still generating press ScottM 05:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's unlikely that we've heard the last of this guy. He's a "polarizing" person - you either love him or hate him, largely ( I suspect ) depending on your politics - so it's useful to the global community for us to provide a NPOV source of information. WMMartin 16:09, 4 March 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Infrogmation 17:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, hope those who didn't recognize the name are not from U.S. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:19, Mar 6, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zub

Non-encyclopedic. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:13, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with penis. It's good to know what it's called in various languages, but we sure as heck don't need separate articles for it in each language. — JIP | Talk 12:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary. Kappa 12:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "Zub" also means "tooth" in Russian. Is that encyclopedic? No. Move to Wiktionary. Grue 12:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic; what Megan1967 said. -- Infrogmation 17:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary already has both penis (which already has a "translations" section) and zub (which lists it as the Czech word for "tooth"), and has had for at least six months. A redirect is unnecessary. Delete. Uncle G 19:44, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. DaveTheRed 23:50, 7 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. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium Project

There's tons of things called 'millennium project' (which is actually a dicdef for any project started near the beginning or supposed to be finished near the end of a millennium). Not notable. Radiant! 12:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, article demonstates notability. Kappa 13:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As Radiant wisely says, a very fertile field, including many projects. I suppose he/she will, in his/her usuual positive attitude, help complete the article. Thus, obviously, keep. --Pgreenfinch 14:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No reason to get sarcastic. What I said was that this is a dicdef, and that there are tons of millennium projects (try googling it - there are lots of things that were thusly named because of them starting or ending near the turn of the millennium). I see little point in putting up a disambig between the dozens of non-notable millennium projects of various companies. This is but one such project. Radiant! 15:08, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. RJH 16:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A global research think tank publishing a large number of reports. According to its web site, it seems to be recognized as a leading player within its field. Notable. If there are other things called "millennium project" we need a disambiguation page, not a VfD vote. / Alarm 17:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "There's tons of things called millenium project, therefore it's not notable". Now that is the sort of logic the world needs more of! Keep.--Gene_poole 22:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is notable regardless of the name. The problem with the names should be solved by disambiguation as articles about other Millenium projects are created. Alexander Konovalenko 12:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 13:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindmeld

Sourceforge project. Judging by the low mailflow on their forum (about a dozen messages this year, so far), it's not doing anything much. Radiant! 12:28, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Very hard to google due to the Star Trek name clash. I'm going to go with a weak delete since the article is written as an ad; Wikipedia is not the place to promote your project. —Korath (Talk) 11:05, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Possibly redirect to a relevant Star Trek article. -Sean Curtin 03:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 14:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindstream

Article discusses Stream of Mind, a Buddhistic principle. However, google affirms that Mindstream is more often used in lots of other contexts. Should we pick one of those, instead of the contraction? Radiant! 12:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Don't delete. If you think it belongs at Stream of Mind, please use your "Move" tab. If you aren't sure, please discuss that on the article's talk page. Kappa 13:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article consists of a quote and a link to an external website. Megan1967 00:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this ad (I've already removed the totally irrelevant external link) without prejudice to a real article. The one sentence that's not a quote from Shantideva is lifted from here, so even that's not salvageable. —Korath (Talk) 11:16, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 14:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miros

Amateur/indie open-source OS (on sourceforge) that currently has no active development. Radiant! 12:42, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- not notable. - Longhair 12:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable yet. utcursch | talk 13:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Not to be confused, of course, with MirOS BSD. Extremely minor hobby project as yet. I wouldn't mark it 'delete', but I somehow am not inspired enough to mark it 'keep' - David Gerard 01:15, 5 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) 15:18, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mister Robinson's Neighborhood

It's a short parody sketch. Nothing much is said. Radiant! 12:44, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• • Ok, turns out to be a known sketch from a famous show. Still I'd vote for merging there. Radiant! 10:13, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Yeah, just a sketch (actually, a series of them) but a pretty widely known and well-remembered one. I remember reading that Fred Rodgers himself enjoyed the homage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, We have articles on other SNL skits, and this one was quite memorable and funny. DaveTheRed 21:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, I cleaned up the article to show that the skit is from SNL, and also added the stub notice. DaveTheRed 21:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, SNL fancruft. Megan1967 00:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important SNL skit starring Eddie Murphy. If we can have an article on Linda Richman, surely we can have one on this. I'm getting verklempt. I'll give you a topic: The Brady Bunch were neither Bradys nor a bunch. Discuss amongst yourselves. Mike H 02:37, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rhode Island is neither a road, nor an island. Discuss amongst yourseves. DaveTheRed 06:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well known and long-running sketch on Saturday Night Live. I believe other recurring skits for SNL and other shows have their own articles, so why not this one. 23skidoo 02:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above, or merge maybe. Kappa 04:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rhobite 05:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the most notable sketch series on SNL. /sɪzlæk˺/ 06:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sketches from TV programs aren't encyclopedic. Might merit a mention in the article about the show. --BM 20:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is the type of pop-culture minutia well known in certain circles that we may not need articles on, but if someone bothers to write about it encyclopedically, keeping it does no harm. -- Infrogmation 17:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a somewhat notable subject, and though it's a sub-category, it doesn't mean we should delete it. Plus, I've seen invididual articles about things such as shock sites, such as goatse.cx, even though it's part of a much broader category. Oklonia 01:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are plenty of articles on sketches from TV shows, minor characters, fictional places in TV shows, etc. See Category:television series stubs if you would like to have a large supply of similar items to nominate for deletion. I am not convinced that this type of thing should be in Wikipedia, but I'm not prepared to support deleting single articles on the basis of the class of things being unsuitable unless the entire class is up for deletion. Courtland 19:00, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Carrp | Talk 20:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wharrel

This article goes nowhere to provide information on notability. -- Longhair | Talk 13:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The bit about a place popular with pike fishermen seems to be true: [12] Loch Wharrel.
• Delete. Entire content Wharrel is a business partner guy. Wharrel is a message board. Wharrel is a popular spot for pike fishers. Created by an IP with a history of vandalism. Andrewa 18:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic nonsense. Cnwb 22:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vandalism. Megan1967 00:30, 3 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Ghetto

• Delete. I thought at first this article just needed some cleaning up, but once I read it I realised that it blatantly made up. Google searches also revealed nothing about Mr. Ghetto or the 2004 tsunami album "Whoosh Splash AHHHH". -- Joolz 14:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Hoax. --InShaneee 16:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunately, hoaxes are not speedy candidates (see patent nonsense, which are speedy candidates but are not to be confused with hoaxes), but they are certainly deletion candidates! HyperZonk^talk 18:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for being a great big bunch of lies, and not very entertaining nor original (you can't just throw together some non-sequiturs and call it comedy). Tuf-Kat 23:46, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 00:31, 3 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. Carrp | Talk 03:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First mp3 song

Entire contents of article: "Tom's Diner by Suzanne Vega is the first song compressed in mp3 format." As this information is already present in Tom's Diner, Suzanne Vega, and MP3, I see no reason to keep this around. Delete. Android79 15:57, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete for short w/little content, duplicate information, bad title, ect. --InShaneee 16:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Android79's reasoning. HyperZonk^talk 18:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate. Maybe redirect to Tom's Diner if we're going to be really nice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move trivia to Tom's Diner. Cnwb 22:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate/redundant article. Megan1967 00:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor triviality. ComCat 02:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 14:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Williams

Webmaster of a Rammstein fansite. At best, the site should get a link on the Rammstein page. However, I can't see how this guy is notable, even if his site is. Vanity either way. Delete. --InShaneee 16:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• He is notable because he is probably the most famous person in the Rammstein community next to the band members. I know you probably couldn't care less about him, but I know that a lot of fans of the band do. KarlKarl 17:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Above comments by page's author. That page was his only work. --InShaneee 20:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient notability. HyperZonk^talk 18:04, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, but being a big fan of a music group does not warrant encyclopedic inclusion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've already deleted this thing three times and blocked the original anon that created it (whose only other "contribution" to Wikipedia was vandalism just prior to creating this article the first time). Note that the picture accompanying the article is titled "Me4". Vanity, nonsense, nonencyclopedic, trolling. And delete the picture, too. RickK 23:36, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Jeremy has to be responsible for gaining atleast half of Rammstein's Fans worldwide!!! Not to mention introducing every Rammstein fan to other amazing German bands such as Megaherz, Eisbrecher, OOMPH!, Stahlhammer, Herzer, In Extremo, Subway To Sally... just to name a few

• Jeremy could easily be considered the seventh member of Rammstein. How many people who run fansites get asked to run the official website of the band they've dedicated a good majority of their time to and actually mean it? That in itself is completely extraordinary and definitely deems Wikipedia status. He's even thanked on the "Thank You/Credits" section of Rammstein's latest album "Reise, Reise" for Christ's sake.

• I hope I'm not bursting anybody's bubble here, but while both of those are pretty cool in their own way, neither of them is all that unusual. I've seen many large fansites become official or semi-official after getting recognised by the band or artist. And I know that if I was a big Rammstein fan, getting thanked in their liner notes would make me very, very, very happy... but would I expect myself to be listed in an encyclopedia because of it? Of course not! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• One more vote for the page: Jeremy is essentially a celebrity within the Rammstein community, and has managed to branch out and create official websites for other German bands. He is more than a one hit wonder, and has gained the respect of a large number of German bands, as well as avid fans of German music. He offers people avenues to explore a culture of music that might otherwise go unknown to them. And one more tidbit, the guy has at least 2 songs written about him, so he must have something going on, to warrent such attention. (Sean 20:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Note this voter's first edit was today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Note all users are created equal. (Sean 23:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC))

• Delete. Not notable. Trilobite (Talk) 00:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- I find Rammstein interesting, but none of this is encyclopedic - Longhair | Talk 10:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Here's another article about a webmaster, Harry Knowles. This article is even more informative than that one. KarlKarl 16:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Look at this, another webmaster with a wikipedia entry, one Richard Kyanka. (Sean 16:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC))

• Keep it, he's a big part of the Rammstein fan community, and now a bit part of the band's activities, too.
  • Above unsigned vote by 138.217.52.170, first and only edit from that IP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • You seem to be one of those who judge people by their post counts. Just because it's their first post, it doesn't mean they're braindead and just because it's their 10000th post, it doesn't mean they're credible either. In any case, you've seen the precedents which have been set by the above two Webmasters. It also takes a lot of time and effort to run not one, not two, but three band sites all filled with content and information which fans would otherwise not get from anywhere else. He may not play the instruments of Rammstein but he is an important part of the crew. If this encyclopedia allows Harry Knowles, don't tell me it can't make room for Jeremy Williams ---Jon 08:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, pointing out unsigned/anon/new-user votes is common practice here on VfD. When admins close the VfD debates, such votes are generally not counted. I call your attention to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which clearly states: administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. Basically, not only is this a bad idea because the votes won't count, it also tends to annoy legitimate voters and admins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • What the heck, I'll be nice and answer your question too: Both Knowles and Kyanka are notable for things other than being a webmaster. Knowles' "Ain't It Cool News" was also a TV series, he's guest-hosted on Siskel & Ebert more than once, he's producing a movie, and he's appeared in several major motion pictures. We get plenty of webmaster articles on Wikipedia, and they're always deleted by voting unless the subject is also notable for something else. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • Interesting points all around. (Sean 21:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC))
          • What is Richard Kyanka notable for other than being the webmaster of a popular comedy site? KarlKarl 21:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • According to the article, he publishes DVDs and owns a clothing line. He also starred in the acclaimed film "Doom House". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • Delete this article since the "legitimates" FEEL that these votes don't mean anything and they were made in so-called "bad faith" and by "sock puppets". Ok, I'll try to make you happy: all of this discussion is really pointless just for a few kilobytes of server space. It's really pointless. Go feel like you've done your "wikiduty" and go ahead and delete this. Yeah, when newbies post favourable opinions, you finally count it as being on "your side".

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 15:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Wigdor

Non-notable. Vanity Page. Anon author (user#24..., user#63..., Keith Wigdor) created article to promote himself. The subject article is non-notible and has created a vanity page. Delete. --Bleedy 18:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. With over 21,000 google hits, Keith Wigdor does seen to have some notariety. Additionally, the article and its associated talk page serve a useful purpose in keeping much of the continual juvenile petty bickering between Wigdor's admirers and detractors contained away from other articles. -- Infrogmation 19:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've noted the large numbers of hits myself. However, I've struggled to find anything significant among them, that doesn't seem to be authored by Wigdor himself. (Often accompanied by abusive comments from others; similar pattern as here, really. Indeed, very likely the same others (or other) as here.) If the views of the admirers and detractors could be distilled down into something semi-encyclopaedic-looking, the article could be significantly improved. If there's no real art-crit of him, though, it does raise valid notability questions. If there is, can someone please cite it, with a view to inclusion in the article? Alai 20:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Keith Wigdor is notable enough to be appointed by Terrance Lindall, the executive director of The Williamsburg Art and Historical Society (art mecca in Brooklyn, New York City) and legendary artist and illustrator of countless magazine and book covers, as LEAD JUDGE for the 2nd Surrealist Film Festival held at the WAH. Since it is a FACT that the WAH Center, (a HIGHLY RESPECTED Art Institution) invited Keith Wigdor to come on down and judge a Surrealist Film Festival indicates that Wigdor certainly is NOTABLE! Also, the Founding Member of THE WEST COAST SURREALIST GROUP, Gregg Simpson, exhibited in Wigdor's virtual online event, SURREALISM 2003. Also, Wigdor was featured in CHURN ART MAGAZINE, in the same issue as the legendary H.R.GIGER and other heavies in the arts. The best selling Science Fiction Author, Greg Bear knows of Keith Wigdor, when Wigdor illustrated the winter 2001 issue of The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Greg has a copy of that magazine and another famous author, Paul Levinson has one of Wigdor's art prints hanging in his office. Also, Wigdor was just interviewed by the webzine, LATCHKEY, which is now online.24.168.67.238 20:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Bleedy, what you wrote above is not true. I did not create the article. Infrogmation created the article.24.168.67.238 19:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. I haven't attempted to determine the notability of the subject, but after taking a look at the Talk and History pages, the VfD nominator (Bleedy) has been involved in a lengthy edit war with various users from 24.168.*, who are likely to be the same person. It looks to me like a case of "I can't have it my way, so I'm taking my ball and going home," but it's hard to say. At any rate, this dispute should be solved on the article's Talk page, not by deleting the article. Android79 21:17, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I see your point, but in the end the previous dispute shouldn't matter in deciding whether or not this subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you're right. I was just concerned that this VfD nomination was motivated by something else than concern over the notability of the subject. I suppose I was a bit naïve to think that the parties involved would start to play nice. After looking at the other arguments, I've decided to change my vote. Android79 20:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This whole article and edit war has been a total waste of time. I don't think this Wigdor even has anything to do with the art world.--Cukestroke 00:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Google gives plenty of hits but most of them are his artworks rather than anything significantly biographical in nature. His autobiographical site [13] doesn't suggest anything notable. Megan1967 03:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.Simply because some people are not familar with this individual's work,does not infer that many others are not both familar with it,and have been influenced by it...I have not met Keith Wigdor in person...but I do have familiarity with his work...besides being a unique corpus of visual work,it also embodies an educated surrealistic movement that resurrects many fundamental propositions of the original surrealistic movement in the arts...it is a perspective that is refreshingly pre-Dali,yet beyond being a mere recapitulation of the past,is a voice unique to our time...I VOTE TO KEEP THE ARTICLE!gmonkai 18:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC).
  • Only five edits, four of which are to this discussion. Gamaliel 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I VOTE TO DELETE THE ARTICLE. I PREFER MY ARTENLINE PAGES. PLEASE FORGIVE ME, FOR ALL WHO HAVE SUPPORTED MY CAUSE, BUT I VOTE FOR THE DELETION OF THE ARTICLE. THANK YOU KEITH WIGDOR.--Keith-Wigdor 15:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above user, "Keith-Wigdor" is an imposter. Wigdor made an official announcement to the Wikipedia Community back on Feb.20,2005 concerning this user. Please disregard the above post. I will notify an Administrator immediately about this user, "Keith-Wigdor".24.168.67.238 16:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to where Wigdor has said that this user is an imposter? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 19:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infrogmation, Wikipedia was already warned about the imposter in a public statement made by Wigdor to Wikipedia on Feb.20, 2005 at the URL http://artenligne.com/@/KeithWigdor

Scroll down the page to read the following, ". Added February 20 Dear Wikipedia, this is Keith Wigdor, Surrealist. It has come to my attention that there is an imposter using my name on your encyclopedia's website talk pages. They have created a user account and they are logging in to your site by placing a dashmark (-) between my first and last name and leaving posts while impersonating me. I am not this person posting as the user, "Keith-Wigdor". I need to inform you of this unfortunate situation and I hope that anyone in authority over at Wikipedia can prevent this person from impersonating me and harrassing your site. I do not know who to contact on your site and I felt it best to make a public statement where everyone can see in order to fix this problem. Thank you, Keith Wigdor, Surrealist Feb.20, 2005"

Wikipedia was also warned about this imposter back on the article's discussion page as well.24.168.67.238 20:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You probably want to go here. As far as disregarding it, there are several contributions here that I would 'weigh lightly', were I the one tallying these votes. One might also ponder the possible use of socks here; for that one would want to contact a developer. Alai 20:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Chap seems non-notable to say the least, has trouble with Wikipedia, and appears to have been involved in a kerfuffle over at Surrealism, according to the RfC page. As for having a 'unique corpus of visual work', it would be unfair to comment. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Currently well under my bar of notability. Some day, no doubt ... and make sure you let me know when you finally get to exhibit in SF, I'll drop by! HyperZonk^talk 18:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No entry in the Grove Art database. No hits in any biographical database I have access to. No hits in the last ten years in Nexis. Gamaliel 18:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I was going to refrain from voting, as I've been trying to be as even-handed as possible in the edit war between the two parties, but the antics of the Wigdorites are getting too much. I've asked repeatedly for evidence of notability of the subject, and in response I've been told that 'notability isn't policy', to 'go away' and stop 'stalking' the various incarnations of 24.168.*.*, and much other repetitious, lengthy, ALL CAPS bluster; pretty much anything but a useful response. (And besides that of being 24.168.*.* by Bleedy, go figger.) If he's notable, it should be possible to cite legitimate art criticism of his work, not just personal testimony from a bunch of anons and single-figures-edits new users about why they consider him notable. I'll change my vote if someone does so, even at this late stage. Gmonkai, you may yell "fascism", but it's the policy. (From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "For example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.") If you want to change the policy, you could start by showing some interest in any aspect of wikipedia aside from the fate of this one miserable little article. If you can think of a good reason why accounts, created by all appearances to help stack a vote, should be given the same status as wikipedians of some demonstrated standing, then by all means go argue that in the appropriate place (which is not this deletion vote). Alai 23:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note some comments withdrawn here...but Alai,given positions you have taken in the past-the posturing of an "evenhandedness" strikes me as a bit staged,as I feel your position was fairly entrenched previous to this edit war...But the motivations for your position I have become convinced have to do with established conventions of the site...and I herein offer apologies for any personal aspersions...When friends and acquaintances of mine who wished to express opinions here and were not allowed admission to editing were suggested to be vandals,site violators,et al....this was a bit much for me...they are both intelligent and informed on the topic...and as they are barred by some convention,in my opinion the site denies itself a very healthy influx to it's roster...I do understand the reasons as explained,because yes-they would enter and vote on this as a first issue-that doesn't mean that a fair percentage wouldn't stay and perhaps offer many good contributions...but again,as in person,I thankyou for suggestions made on my talk sheet..I believe they delineate lines of action that work within this system that could be more affective to this cause...I believe that some of the published reviews and criticques may exist,and that constructive energy should be applied to corrollating and presenting them...but I also believe an influx of respectable working artisans knowledgeable regarding this artist's work would have done this site and edit war no harm,and further I believe their views would likewise have been relevant to the issue of "notability",in the least they would have proven this artist to be well past "emerging"...I do not know who or what has been blocking their entrance,but I do feel rather certain that it has not been you,Alai.gmonkai.
    • Gladly accepted. I wouldn't claim to have been perfectly even-handed, only as even-handed as I could manage at any given time. (Possibly if only by way of being equally annoyed at 24.*.*.* and Bleedy by turns at times.) But before the edit war, I had no position at all, much less an entrenched one, as I'd not even heard of Keith Wigdor. (See the article talk page for the spookily mundane history of all this.) If the cavalry has arrived to save and improve the Wigdor article, but just too late, as I commented to you elsewhere, perhaps an article about the subject can be created with (much!) better documentation as to his notability at a later date. (I have no idea how much later would be a decent interval, and before anyone jumps down my throat, I am absolutely not suggesting recreation of the same content, at this or any other time.) I hope your friends are able to resolve their technical/blocking issue (and I sincerely hope it was the latter). Alai 21:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • First of all, please desist with the personal attacks. If you're referring to the message left by User:El_C, he was referring to the apparent (and as I cynically, but correctly predicted, extremely temporary) agreement between Bleedy and 24.168.*.* as to the content of the article. Unless for some reason you believe he was congratulating me for the vote I hadn't made yet, in a deletion vote that hadn't started yet: look at the date of the edit, Mar 1. If you're referring to something else, you've lost me entirely. And I haven't a) been presented with any of the information I requested -- doesn't even have to be objective, just "quotable" -- or b) 'found all manner of reasons' for anything of the sort. I informed anyone who'd listen of what the policy is, I didn't made the policy, I won't be the person implementing (or otherwise) the policy, and I haven't excluded anyone from anything. You may withdraw these accusations at your earlier convenience. Alai 10:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • And on your last point (edit conflict, didn't reply to it in the original), the only issue is the notability of the Keith Wigdor article. If anyone has any information on that, it ought to be forwarded with all expeditiousness. I have no knowledge of anyone being barred admission -- contact an admin, or a developer. I don't see how that's material to this VfD, however. If the problem is simply some urgently information, can't it be forwarded via someone else? What I'm seeing, though, is lots of complaints about process, and nothing substantiative to the matter at hand. Alai 10:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, sockpuppet antics. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, vanity page. BTfromLA 00:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've moved large chunks of unrelated discussion, accusations of fascism, etc, to the articles talk page, which can be reached by clicking on the discussion tag. Let's keep this page organized, please. Gamaliel 01:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, sockpuppet supported. Remember to delete the various talk page archives as well, Wikipedia is not a repository for anon drivel. jni 16:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with jni. --Neigel von Teighen 21:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. keith is the man keep the article! (Who posted this?)
  • Twas by User:Iodprod, who ought to sign. But as it was their only edit ever... Alai 02:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 05:44, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete. Brookie 20:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Inforgmation with respects to notability, though I do see a need for further expansion – and on that front, I echo much of Alai's sentiments. I also wish to commend Alai for his patient and dedicated work with the article and its endless disputes. El_C 21:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Evidently Keith Wigdor himself votes DELETE: Here's an excerpt from his web page (a link is on the disputed page), dated Mar 6: " I, Keith Wigdor, Surrealist, would like to ask the Wikipedia Community to please delete the Keith Wigdor article. I would like to thank this person, "Infrogmation" for creating this article, but I really do not want any article in an encyclopedia, though it was very kind of you to consider an article on me, but my main concern is surrealism and photomontage, not encyclopedias. Read one of my past statements from the website Art Renegades from three years ago (it is still online). I do thank both Infrogmation and EL_C for their interest in my art but I do not want the article online after this harrassment. I would also like to thank the Wikipedia Encyclopedia for considering any article on me, (I am flattered) but I must decline. Congratulations on the success of your website and please stop the person (or persons) from using your website to harrass me. Wikipedia, Thank you, Keith Wigdor, Surrealist." BTfromLA 19:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I know, but if he is, in fact, notable, his own wishes are not pertinent, and the same is true for any person, organization, etc. Of course, I regret any hardships endured by the artist, but, nontehelss, we have responsibility for encyclopedicity El_C 03:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's perfectly true. But if he's a user registered here before the start of this vote (which would appear to be the case: User:Keith Wigdor has one edit, his own user page) then he'd get to vote like anyone else, no more, and no less. Unless that's another imposter, of course... Alai 05:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Totally unrelated to Keith Wigdor, but imagine that an organization with hunderds of members (who all read the rules and register before a vote) wishes to have an article deleted — it would be utter madness! El_C 06:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • This is true. There's also some vague language in the guidance to admins about how to judge "rough consensus", and how to weight votes from users with very limited numbers of edits... Alai 07:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Keith Wigdor. Hyacinth 21:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Subjects of articles don't get the option of deciding whether or not articles should be deleted. RickK 07:31, Mar 13, 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. Carrp | Talk 03:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prithvi veer

Not notable. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 20:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not even an encyclopedia article. Hopelessly NPOV letter written out to a whole region to encourage it to change to socialism. I'm assuming the author has good intentions, but this is NOT how to bring about an economic revolution. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, obvious vanity. Megan1967 00:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Megan. --jag123 01:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Orphan non-article vanity. -- Infrogmation 17:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Andrew Lenahan said. Jonathunder 01:05, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
• Delete -- I don't see how any improvements could make this 'keepable' - Longhair | Talk 02:38, 5 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. Carrp | Talk 03:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WRETARD

Promotional, vanity, or something like that. 3 Google hits for WRETARD dodgeball. There's no way for us to verify something like this, Delete. - RedWordSmith 21:12, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 00:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable --jag123 01:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, or something Tygar 09:48, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Not encyclopedic - Longhair | Talk 02:33, 5 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, so keep. Deathphoenix 03:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lubelski

Clear case vanity? Art-cruft? Or encyclopedically notable? 235 unique google hits. [14] The sub-stub reads, in full: "Abraham Lubelski is an artist and editor of NYArts Magazine.". End of sub-stub. Should this stay or go? GRider\^talk 21:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently also writes (or wrote) for Berliner Kunst magazine. [15] Has (or had) a NYC gallery [16], [17]. He seems to have at least curated (his exact role is unclear) a show in Istanbul involving some very big names [18]. Looks like he also publishes Art Fairs International [19]. All this from 5 minutes with Google. Sounds like a bit of a figure in the art world. The current article would be no great loss, but I say keep and expand, this is a person I'd want to know more about. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Mar 6, 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) 15:22, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ademir da Guia

Are Brazilian council members from São Paulo inherently noteworthy? With 489 unique google hits, [20] what about this one? GRider\^talk 21:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 00:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - yes - David Gerard 00:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If not convinced by councillor status, he's also a former pro soccer player, so he might deserve an article just for that (not sure--little knowledge about soccer leagues in Sao Paulo). Meelar (talk) 02:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep councilors for major cities and most pro sportspeople. Kappa 04:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A Brazilian pro soccer player is apt to be notable because Brazil has won the World Cup 5 times. If you add his role as a councillor adds to his notability. Capitalistroadster 10:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I would vote Keep on the grounds that he's a former footballer, the councillor part is just icing on the cake. Xezbeth 15:32, Mar 8, 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. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addie "Micki" Harris

281 hits. Two sentence sub-stub. Delete or merge? GRider\^talk 20:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 00:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee, founding member of The Shirelles. ElBenevolente 01:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have this inexplicable conviction that an article about a member of one of the most influential pop groups of the early 1960s is pretty readily expandable. Keep, but lose the quotation marks in the article title. Bearcat 07:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'd say Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductees are notable enough for articles. Too bad all we have so far is a stublet, but its a start. -- Infrogmation 17:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Member of notable music group. Capitalistroadster 10:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 17:43, 6 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) 15:23, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adriana Porter

Is this an instance of outright spam, or notability? GRider\^talk 21:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems she was most likely responsible for the Wiccan Rede. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur Kappa 15:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As it is now, delete--nixie 02:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously notable in the Wiccan movement. I've gotten rid of the "spam" for the "forthcoming" book. As it is a stub, it certainly needs to be expanded, but that does not make it deletable. HyperZonk^talk 18:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Xezbeth 17:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please expand as it is hard to find reliable background elsewhere, witchvox.org might be able to help 24.250.210.206 12:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes Varis

Vanity-cruft or resume-cruft. Which is it? Or could this be construed as encyclopedically noteworthy? If so, why? 163 unique google hits. [21] GRider\^talk 21:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Starting two pharmaceutical companies, funding a chair at Tufts University, have political influence over Democratic moves to control drug pricing- they seem like pretty notable contributions,'keep--nixie 02:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Kappa 04:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As above. Cnwb 06:46, 3 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) 15:26, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert J. Ruffo

With a respective 15 to 31 hits for Albert Ruffo or Albert J. Ruffo, [22] [23] is this figure an exclusion to the Wikipedia:Google test? GRider\^talk 22:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ruffo was more commonly called "Al", and a Google search for "Al Ruffo" turns up about 900 hits in english. [24] Gentgeen 07:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, is this article a copyvio, see [25] or just ripped off from Wikipedia? There is no tags to indicate where it was sourced from. Megan1967 00:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • They're a highly noncompliant mirror. Check out some of "their" other articles. Bad them, bad bad them. —Korath (Talk) 11:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like he was a great man, however not a notable one IMO. Unless, of course, we have decided that city council members of large cities are encyclopedic ... what became of that consensus? He was on the San Jose city council (and as much as those of us in San Francisco hate to admit it, SJ is bigger than SF). HyperZonk^talk 18:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • The Chicago councilman consensus is still in discussion, but is leaning towards merging the lot of them.
• Keep--there's no consensus either way on the local politicians, unfortunately. I think we should err on the side of caution here. Meelar (talk) 18:22, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. Gamaliel 18:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not seem notable enough. ComCat 02:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. He was mayor, councilman, and a co-founder of the 49ers. None of those individually would convince me to keep, but put them together and he scrapes by. DaveTheRed 07:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete concurring with Hyperzonk. Radiant! 10:18, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What DaveTheRed said, plus it looks like a proper multi-paragraph Wikipedia article. -- Infrogmation 17:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no good reason to delete - David Gerard 01:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Google test is not so good on a mostly local figure whose main fame predates the Web by decades. I would be surprised if this couldn't be expanded into a really worthwhile article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although the article could use an expansion. Gentgeen 07:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Being a mayor of a major city is notable as is founding a notable football team. Doing both definitely qualifies. Keep and expand. Capitalistroadster 10:24, 6 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. Carrp | Talk 03:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Address of the Second Vatican Council

Just when you thought wikipedia couldn't get any cruftier... It's Vatican-cruft! Miss Pippa 22:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. We don't need an article for this when we already have Second Vatican Council. I'd say merge, but all that's there is a single sentence, and a URL. Nick04 22:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Add the URL to the Second Vatican Council and then delete. DaveTheRed 00:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing here even worth merging. Megan1967 00:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless significantly expanded. However, I doubt the opening address was groundbreaking enough to warrant its own discussion. Psychonaut 03:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'm actually in a Vatican II religion class right now at Catholic University in DC. Pope John's opening address was actually considered significant in setting the tone of the entire Council (Ottaviani's texts filled with condemnations vs. Pope John's message against the "prophets of doom"). Although it may be a good idea to delete this individual article, several paragraphs should be devoted to the Opening Address in the Vatican II article. --68.100.250.35 01:08, 10 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 or MERGE. Of course, it isn't possible to merge to a red link, and merging to Sylvia Beach doesn't seem that appropriate to me. So I'll leave it alone. dbenbenn | talk 16:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George whitman

Thoroughly unnotable. Nicely written, though... Smoddy (t) (e) 22:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Shakespeare and Co or Shakespeare and Company. (I realize that there is a NYC chain by the same name, but I'm not sure if one is related to the other or how.) That Paris store was a pretty important nexus, and certainly the proprietor played a role in the Beats, so I'd hate to see the information go into the bit bucket. Geogre 05:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The bookstore is VERY notable; the first incarnation published Joyce's Ulysses, and was a major center for Anglophone writers and artists in Paris. Perhaps the George Whitman info should be merged with the Sylvia Beach entry--these could then either become a Shakespeare and Company article, or Shakespeare and Company could redirect to Beach. BTfromLA 09:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, if verifiable. (The remarks about the store generally, I can vouch for; I have firends who've slept on tht floor. His being proprietor I'm not so sure of, I thought the store was now owned by City Lights, out of San Francisco.) I would say that anyone who was more than briefly proprietor of the most famous English-language bookstore on the European continent is notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, Mar 6, 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. Carrp | Talk 03:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Daffodil Song

Only one match on google - a mirror of this article, at another site. Non notable, probably vanity on the part of "one Eitan Mirvis". --Moochocoogle 23:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unverifiable, with no established significance. Geogre 05:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verified. Not notable. Probable vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:52, 6 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 in its current form. Deathphoenix 03:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aid to Bible Understanding

A Jehovah's Witness publication which no longer exists. The article itself consists of three short introductory paragraphs and five long quoted paragraphs which are more in the nature of a religious sermon than an encyclopedia article. RickK 23:18, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Note: I received a message on my Talk page that this is part of the Jehovah's Witness project and it is their right to decide which of their project articles get put on VfD. My comment: No, it's not. RickK 23:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

A "Note" about your Note: Rick, you're taking me all wrong. I am asking for help and yes a little disturbed by the method. This does not mean I think you have no right to request deletion. I think this may be an issue for ammending the deletion policy. Please, ......r e l a x. george 00:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are other places better to work from if you want to amend policy at Wikipedia. VfD is for voting and simple debate on the votes themselves. To actually make or change policy, you'll need to build a consensus of editors interested in the given subject. A good place to start would be Guide to Votes for deletion, Wikipedia policies and guidelines or perhaps the Village Pump. Good luck! Fire Star

• Delete. This is the same as making a "guide on how to use a butter knife". Being religion related doesn't change anything. --Sn0wflake 23:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think it did. george 00:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Bible encyclopedia by major religious movement. Kappa 04:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Kappa, keep. Radiant! 10:13, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, but get rid of the quotes. Dunc|☺ 17:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It does need serious re-work to become more neutral in tone, but it seems worth keeping. — RJH 17:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, it needs serious work to get rid of the POV proselytising, and a new title (perhaps Aid to Bible Understanding (Jehovah's Witnesses) but there is no reason not to have an article on the defunct publication, as long as it is a proper encyclopaedia article. Abstain for now. Fire Star 17:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think we all agree that it needs NPOV, but this publication seems to be not only important to the JWs, but is also cited by those who disagree with them a source text documenting their alleged errors. HyperZonk^talk 18:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• If retitled and NPOV, it could be kept. However, the retitling is extremely important, as we get a fair number of new users who look for and write articles with titles like this, and the title could be confused as a Wikipedia how-to. Both are dangerous. Under this title, there is absolutely no way it should be kept. NPOV is hard. Cleanup probably won't do the trick, and the original author has a dog in the hunt. I have to say delete, in its present form, but I would be in favor of keeping a retitled and neutral version. Geogre 05:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Comment. Should Hitler Has Only Got One Ball be retitled lest people think Wikipedia expresses that Hitler had only one ball? Should How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb be postfixed "(album)"? Literal titles are not POV. If it's named Aid to Bible Understanding or 1001 Reasons Why Wikipedia Sucks or for all I care Why I'm Right and You're All Wrong, and it's the only major thing having that title, then that's the title the article should have. Of course, the article must establish in the first sentence what it's about, but pre-emptive title fiddling to "remove the POV" is silly, especially if the intent is, in essence, to prevent people from finding it too easily. And we're talking NPOV? :-)

  Put up glaring notices on the talk page, educate newbies, etc., but don't go issuing decrees like "no way it should be kept under this title", especially if that is the title. If you disagree, get support for changing the naming policies—this is the sort of thing that applies to many articles, I'd wager. 82.92.119.11 10:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, those titles should be changed, user 82.92.119.11. If we take care of ambiguity up front, we don't have to cure it later. Since we already have things like Revolver (album), I think we absolutely should use "(album)" after music albums. The same goes for films, etc. Create redirects at the naive form, but keep the names clear in meaning and coverage. Geogre 20:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Please, call me Sam. And I owe you an apology, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) for the most part agrees with you. My reaction was a knee-jerk response to your heavy-handed throwing around of phrases like "NPOV" and "absolutely no way". Re-reading, I see your concern was that the title encouraged POV edits, not that it was itself POV, so most of my reply was beside the mark. I shall have a slice of humble pie in your honor. 82.92.119.11 17:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The current title would still be a redirect (or a disambiguation in case there are more than one publications with this name) to the more accurately titled page. We do it all the time. That way, it would be just as easy to find, and the titling when the page opened would let the person know which sect they were dealing with. Win-win. Fire Star 14:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and under present title. May be trivia in the wider world, but it's useful reference material when reading up on the JWs - David Gerard 01:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. Title is not important and can be fixed at any time. I like Aid to Bible Understanding being a redirect to a categorized name, but I can't see that it matters much. My personal preference would have been to have this be a section in a single article about Jehovah's Witness literature, but there's enough here for a separate article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; notable bible encylopedia by a religious movement. Antandrus 03:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• commentI want to condense this article with two others: Reasoning From the Scriptures and Insight on the Scriptures. Therefore with a request for some time to get it done I change my vote to delete. george 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; notable and of potential interest to religious scholars. Psychonaut 03:50, 6 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. dbenbenn | talk 17:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodgreen

• Delete: Non notable secondary school. Reads like an advert. Ketil Trout 23:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reads as a valid school-stub to me and I've marked it as such. GRider\^talk 00:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• BEEFSTEW score of 1 (A only. Ouch.) And the name is incorrect, apparently. Delete. No evidence of notability. A mention of it would fit in the (quite brief) Witney article, if someone feels the need to include it somewhere. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid school stub. Kappa 04:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just a school. Not notable. --Holdek 09:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. The title given to this article is incorrect due to technical limitations. The correct title is Wood Green School. What limitations? If kept, move to Wood Green School. -- RHaworth 10:33, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
• Delete, same as the rest of them. —Korath (Talk) 11:57, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Ketiltrout. Radiant! 16:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even try to establish notability. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable space and time waster. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school. BEEFSTEW score of 1 (or perhaps zero, as this title didn't even get the name right). Jonathunder 05:53, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Notice to reviewing administrator: There was an attempt to vote stack on this article. See GRider's contributions. Votes beyond this point need to be reviewed carefully and considered carefully. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users must consider all policies and former consensus before commenting for consensus: Please note, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is not the only policy to consider.

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:What's in, what's out

Considerations should also be made to the following as well:

• Wikipedia:Google test
• Wikipedia:Importance

Users should remember that the Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: A school has to be more than a school, and a substub has to be on something really important, to stay. A stub on a school with nothing unique about it is a sure loser for me. Geogre 05:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, that's not anything like a substub ... - David Gerard 19:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notatble. DaveTheRed 07:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --BaronLarf 19:39, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, give proper name (including location). Gives info (is not a substub) and has reference - David Gerard 19:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school. Gamaliel 19:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a school Wincoote 19:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since it's possible for a good article to be written on this topic. It does no harm that I can see, except to Special:Randompage. It isn't clear whether a good article about the school will ever be useful to anyone, but on the other hand someone cared enough about it to start the article. And I just don't see that notability matters in this case. The article doesn't inherently fool the reader into thinking the topic is notable, so there's no problem. dbenbenn | talk 20:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow to expand Drw25 21:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and make room for extra helpings of BEEFSTEW. RaD Man (talk) 22:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, high schools and beyond are inherently encyclopedic (and I shan't get started on all the video game nano-cruft that lurks around here). Wyss 23:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Decent school stub. --Andylkl 23:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. — Gwalla | Talk 01:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Google results appear notable enough. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 12:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It exists and there's plenty of space in this encyclopedia James M 14:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think schools are inherently notable. Further, "notability" is not listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy (even though I wish it were, and have tried to include it), so isn't grounds for deletion anyway. Dan100 17:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• keep - all of these schools are notable Yuckfoo 23:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Another time-wasting deletioncruft nomination.--Centauri 23:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School. Full Stop.LukeSurl 23:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: In regards to claims of vote-stacking, their are large amounts of people who beleive well-written articles for schools are inherently notable. Merely bringing an article to someones attention is no more votestacking than providing a link for someone is. If you'll notice, GRider's contributions were far and wide and not concentrated on any bloc or mailing list group. Speaking for myself, I evaluated the article and voted to keep it out of sincere belief that it deserved to be kept and not out of any votestacking motivation. I have faith that the majority of the other voters did as well. Thank you for your time. -CunningLinguist 03:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In defence of GRider, I agree with what CunningLinguist has said. --Andylkl 04:46, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 05:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing in the article establishes notability. If there is a case to be made, make it. Note that some of the "keep" votes seem to reject the notion of encyclopedic notability.-- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 17:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a real place, Mark Richards 21:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I see all of the same copy&paste block votes above as on the other high schools' articles. I cannot help but be suspicious of them, given that those voters all voted the same as they voted above ("real place", "notable", "interesting stub", and so forth) at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maha Jana High School for a school that doesn't actually exist. So instead I'm voting after actually reading the article. ☺ Wood Green School is one of 34 secondary schools under the aegis of Oxfordshire Education Authority alone. It has all of the standard trappings of state schools: PTAs, 6th forms, newsletters, school trips, and so forth. And there is nothing to mark it out from the crowd of 34, let alone from out of the vastly larger crowds of all secondary schools in the United Kingdom, or all secondary schools in the world. It's worth noting that schools are, after all, intended to be uniform. Reasonably uniform provision of public education at this level is indeed public policy in many countries. There is nothing of importance to say about such schools and their articles (with any academic boosterism neutered) are thus tantamount to directory entries. Indeed, this article has almost nothing more to say about Wood Green School than its listing in the Oxfordshire Education Authority schools' directory has to say. And that is a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. Delete. Uncle G 18:32, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Comment. Although I was made aware of this by User:GRider I don't believe this invalidates my vote. My personal opinion is that all secondary schools are worthy of being on Wikipedia and I will vote on all relavent pages when however I am made aware of this. If the purpose of VfD is to determine what the community feels about an article then it is best that it involves as many people who feel concerned as possible.

With regard to the above comment schools are never going to achieve uniformity whether it is intended to or not. I am sure this school, like any group of hundreds of people will have a unique history and events occuring in it which are encylopedic. LukeSurl 22:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've trialled a school template on this page. I'd like to know what people think of it. LukeSurl 15:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory refers to business listings and is a directive against using Wikipedia to advertise. Using this argument against a state school is completely out of context. It is not suprising that this school has all of the standard trappings of state schools because it is a state school. However that does not mean there is nothing unique about it.

This page contains enough data about the school to merit its incusion in Wikipedia as a stub. The stub label is there as an invite to any Wikipedian from the local community or the school who knows more about the school than is on the website to update the page using their personal expertise. It is not correct to delete articles just because they are currently stubs, this appears to be a summary of all the arguments to delete this page.

I would invite Wikipedians voting on this, and all schools in VfD to look at the many succesful school articles on Wikipedia to see what can be achieved. An example quite close to home for me is the development of Adams' Grammar School--LukeSurl 00:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep with a recommendation to reconsider the title of the article. Rossami (talk) 20:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Slam (UEFA)

The contents of this page has no relationship to reality. No such 'competition' or otherwise exists. Bornintheguz 23:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This term is widely attested to (for instance here). Apparently not a competition (the article does not claim such), but instead a designation, like "Triple Crown" for winners of three important horse races in the U.S.A. HyperZonk^talk 18:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because it's useful information. It's actually very hard to find references to this particular variety of "grand slam" though. Kappa 00:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Rename as it's not a Grand Slam. The term 'Grand Slam' is used in sports, when referring to winning all possible matches in one season or holding all titles at once, but this page is claiming that it is used to describe having won different competitions at different times in history, which is not the same. There's no official use of the phrase by UEFA, and a Google search [26] doesn't return any results on the 1st page where "grand slam" directly refers to winning UEFA tournaments. Qwghlm 02:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • On reflection, the information there is useful and notable, so I wouldn't delete, but perhaps it should be moved to a more correct title. Qwghlm 16:09, Mar 8, 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. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Toll

With 84 google hits [27], does this pass "the test"? GRider\^talk 23:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the founders of the largest tranport companies in every pair of countries. Kappa 04:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, can't agree with that criteria for notability. Unless the individual has notability beyond founding a company (for instance, the Kelloggs are noted for a health agenda beyond their company, or Bill Gates not only founded a company, but is considered by many to have kicked off the PC boom (and the buggy software boom)), I don't think they are necessarily notable. I am interested to see what the consensus is, however! HyperZonk^talk 17:55, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily passes the bar for notability. ElBenevolente 01:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The company he founded has 17,000 employees and turnover of nearly $4 billion Australian dollars. [28] He was also the local mayor in the Newcastle area of Australia 5 times and is generally recognised as a notable Novocastrian. [29] Capitalistroadster 01:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep founders of large companies. DaveTheRed 07:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Hyperzonk, delete. Radiant! 10:13, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 01:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this one isn't even marginal. --iMb~Mw 12:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable. Xezbeth 17:45, Mar 7, 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. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Szirmai

With 70 unique matches on google [30], is this opera-cruft or noteworthy and encyclopedic information? Where do you draw the line and how? GRider\^talk 23:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's notable enough for Grove (subscription access), so he's notable enough for me. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have expanded the page based on the info in Grove. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Good work! Antandrus 03:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant composer of operetta; the most famous Hungarian composer of operetta in the early 20th century. By the way, Google "Albert Sirmay" (his American name) for a better test of his English-language significance. Antandrus 03:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• A Google Search brought up "The Albert Szirmai Award of the Academy of Music". Tell me he's not notable. Keep on this basis. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Duh, KEEP. What the ----? Since when did GRider and RickK trade logins? —RaD Man (talk) 03:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GRider is nominating all sorts of article in order to make a WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. GRider is here to find out where we draw the line and how. I think writing an opera that's performed at a major venue would meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines. Kappa 04:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I wondered if opera and other forms of classical were covered in Wiki Project Music guidelines. I now know. The fact he has composed a number of operettas and is mentioned in an authorative source indicates his notability to me. Well done MindSpillage for your work on the article. Capitalistroadster 10:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 01:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable composer. — Gwalla | Talk 01:38, 5 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. Carrp | Talk 03:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Ostman

Where to begin... Are people who claim to have been kidnapped by Bigfoot inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? GRider\^talk 23:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just under the bar of notability. It has never been proven it was "Bigfoot". Megan1967 01:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Was going to suggest merge to Bigfoot, but info already exists there. --jag123 01:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can post a picture of Ostman with Bigfoot. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:39, 3 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. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert F. Sabo

Are all state judges inherently noteworthy? Does it matter if the most notable detail is a completely unsubstantiated claim? If so, how? GRider\^talk 00:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and expand. Seems to have some notoriety in the media. Megan1967 01:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though his notoriety seems to be based entirely on the Mumia case. However, this article desperately needs some NPOV-ing. If you are asking about my bar in this case, I believe that he is notable not as a state judge but as the subject of many news stories and intensive international debate, and due to the fact that "encyclopedic" biographical facts about this individual may be deemed to be important to a better understanding of the arguments on both sides of the (unquestionably notable) case in which he was involved. HyperZonk^talk 17:46, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• To answer your question, no, state judges aren't inherently noteworthy IMHO. This one, however, is more notable than the average judge. Since his notability is on one case only I'd suggest mergingthere. Radiant! 10:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Agree with Radiant!. State judges are not inherently noteworthy. In this case, there is already a better and longer discussion of Sabo at Mumia Abu-Jamal#Objections to Jamal's trial. Rossami (talk) 20:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. His notability seems based on a single high-profile trial, but redirecting the name of a judge to an article on an individual (Mumia Abu-Jamal) involved in a case the judge presided over seems awkward. — Gwalla | Talk 01:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I would keep this article. That trial was highly news worthy, someone might want to look up this judge if one was doing research. Morris 19:39, Mar 6, 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) 15:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Carnesale

The sub-stub reads, in full: "Al Carnesale is the chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles." End of sub-stub. Brevity aside, are all U.C. chancellors now considered to be encyclopedic? If your answer is "yes", please name at least one other encyclopaedia which carries an article about this person. GRider\^talk 00:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Borderline keep. UCLA is a well-known institution, and probably has a population (and a budget) larger than many of the cities in Wikipedia. A university chancellor, as nominal head of the institution, is probably notable by association for major universities. Chancellors also are often chosen because they have notable accomplishments and achievements already, though this article certainly doesn't suggest what those might be. (Whether or not other reference works choose to cover a topic should have only limited bearing on Wikipedia's decisions. Does Britannica have an article on Slashdot?) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Thanks for looking that up, Capitalistroadster. I fixed your link to the Chancellor's bio, and if nobody else gets to it today, I can try to slap together some sort of biographical sketch on the article page tonight. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) I've added a good chunk of biographical material. The article could still use some more fleshing out, though, particularly something about his writings. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. His bio shows that he has written six books, was Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and represented the US at the SALT 1 talks between 1969 and 1972. [31] As TenOfAllTrades, has noted chancellors especially of major universities tend to be chosen because they are notable in their own right. Carnesale is no exception. Capitalistroadster 11:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep chancellors of major universities. Kappa 15:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep chancellors of major universities. But note that this puts us on a slippery slope as to what constitutes a "major" university. If we have the chancellor of major university X (without any other basis for notability), the next thing we will be arguing about is the chancellor of not-quite-so-major university Y. The next step is that people will be saying "keep chancellors of all universities"; then "all principals of high schools"; and so forth. --BM 17:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded to establish notability. Gamaliel 18:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep based on impressive expansion of article. Chancellors are not automatically notable in my opinion, but this person is based on a view of his entire biography. Gamaliel 21:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on expansion. Chancellors may be automatically notable, but we're talking about an article, not a person. A vote on the one is not a vote on the other. A substub that says "Adolf Hitler was a German leader" should be deleted. Until there is information sufficient to justify the pixels and bytes, there is no article. The present article shows significance (and that's the question, folks, not "is IT notable" but "does the article SHOW notability"). Geogre 04:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - not because he's a chancellor (can't keep all of those IMHO), but because he passes the professor test. Radiant! 10:15, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Chancellors are not inherently noteworthy. The expanded article shows that this person (who happens to be a chancellor) is noteworthy. Keep. Rossami (talk) 20:19, 4 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. Carrp | Talk 22:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alec Coryton

Weighing in with 17 unique google hits [32], does this figure exceed "the bar" of notability? Please discuss amongst yourselves. GRider\^talk 00:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep at least for the moment. It depends on what he did during the war and as the top ranked officer in the RAF whether it is worth keeping. Article needs working on though. Nashikawa 01:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Top ranked officers in the RAF, especially during wartime. Kappa 04:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Stub makes him seem like a noteworthy person. Tygar 09:45, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Senior officer (second highest rank in the RAF) holding several senior positions. Looks notable to me. Can't see why it was listed. -- Necrothesp 16:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You get more hits if you search for 'Air Chief/Vice Marshal/Marshall Coryton', as I'm sure people underneath him didn't use his first name. One hit for 'Alex Coryton' as well. One of the dusty, unremarked, anonymous figures from history who held an extremely senior job with huge responsibility, whose policies no doubt contributed to the actual death of real human beings, friend and foe alike, and who now exists almost solely as a footnote in dusty old encyclopaedias (the archetypal example being US President James K Polk). -Ashley Pomeroy 17:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Article definitely needs work, but even more definitely keepworthy. DS 15:06, 5 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. Carrp | Talk 03:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24/7 (BDSM)

It's nice that the BDSM people use this term too, but not terribly noteworthy. They haven't changed the original meaning of 24/7 that much. Note that the 24/7 page itself is a candidate for wikitionary. DaveTheRed 23:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a relatively non-notable dicdef. An explanation on the BDSM page should serve just as well, and I wouldn't expect anyone to search for the string "24/7 (BDSM)". --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tygar 04:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. So "24/7" means the same thing in BDSM as it means everywhere else. Big whoop. Do we need articles like 24/7 (commerce), 24/7 (education), 24/7 (military), 24/7 (games), 24/7 (Harry Potter), too? — JIP | Talk 10:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons stated above. Jeltz talk 12:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — RJH 17:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This serves no function except to pamper an ego. Geogre 04:53, 4 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.