Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 6

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 12:54, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

• 03:12, 2005 Mar 11 Fuzheado deleted Nick Amacher (content was: 'Born on November the 11, of 1994, Nicholas Allen Amacher was a failed actor. He turned into a Gay Activist and jointed the United Faggot Party of Amer...')
• 06:50, 2005 Mar 7 Dysprosia deleted Nick Amacher (basically more vandalism from 24.20.190.212 - speedy.)

[edit] Nick Amacher

Unnotable gay fiancee of gay rapper Michael Bolton?? Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Um patent nonsense? Born 1994... Kappa 01:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 02:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yep. Reads like a personal attack page. Delete. Bearcat 03:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: libel page, no question about worthiness or inclusion. Geogre 04:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; offensive, libelous nonsense. Antandrus 05:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. While it's certainly possible that Michael Bolton has switched to rap and that he's living with and engaged to a 10-year-old transsexual, the article provides no corroboratory evidence. --Angr 12:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Angr's arguement. --Jacobw 18:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Jonathunder 23:35, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• DeleteTjc 09:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: if it wasn't obvious before, look at this [1], left by the same anon who created the article. I think this should be speedied. Antandrus 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted as speedy. Same user created other vandalism. Dysprosia 06:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Test Match

Cricket box score. No chance to become encyclopedic. Longstanding listing at WP:CP without resolution. Delete. DanKeshet 01:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• If it was not a copyvio, it would have been Wikisource. Delete. JFW | T@lk 01:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let me get this straight - we have an article about the score in one particular test match played between two specific countries in 2004? A copyvio at that? From the first website that cricket fans check for live scores? Seriously, why? -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 04:14, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• Delete: Only the existence of a sequel suggests this isn't a test page. Since the author is in earnest, VfD is the right place, and deletion ought to be its fate. Geogre 04:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Arguably not a copyvio, but delete anyway - Wikipedia is not cricinfo.com. sjorford →•← 08:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Already marked copyvio - David Gerard 10:02, 11 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. The article cannot be deleted at this time due to block-compression errors. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism in Phoenix

Not a notable enough subject to rate a Wikipedia article. Phoenix, Arizona is the only city with an article on anarchist activities in the city. Article is entirely about "black bloc" groups in Phoenix today who have no notability nor influence, neither within anarchism nor within mainstream politics, thus it looks like a possible vanity article. Delete Kaibabsquirrel 01:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a follow-up comment: I could see city by city articles on anarchism justified only for those cities where it is notable. Say, Chicago or Seattle. Even there, the Chicago article might as well just redirect to Haymarket Riot and the Seattle article to WTO Meeting of 1999. A separate article for Phoenix seems way out of place any way you look at it. Kaibabsquirrel 05:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 02:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's true that we don't have city-by-city articles on anarchists, but it's not obvious to me that we shouldn't. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Other than the mention of an unremarkable (and unverified) "Anarchist Library", this article is a recap of a few minor news events from the summer of 2000. I don't see a real encyclopedia article here. Delete (or maybe transwiki to WikiNews?). Rossami (talk) 02:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I know of no reason to think that Phoenix anarchism has had any particularly influence or notability, unlike, say, anarchism in Eugene, Oregon or even conservatism in Orange County. RadicalSubversiv E 02:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete without third party verification that anyone cares. This is anarchist vanity. (And then there's that template ...) - David Gerard 10:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though this article lacks a lot of information, it can and will be improved upon. Anarchism in Phoenix is in fact notable for many different reasons which will hopefully be written within this article. I would suggest keeping it up for a little with the hopes of someone updating it. The Phoenix Anarchist Coalition does have notability within Phoenix and espescially Tempe which is a part of Phoenix. Just a note I am not the author of this article. And the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition nor any of the other groups mentioned within this article have anything to do with the blac bloc. And even moreso the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition has been very influential within the national anarchist movement with special emphasis on the southwest
  • Above posted by 68.98.87.56. RadicalSubversiv E 21:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Other websites, such as Infoshop, a notable source, have placed focus on Phoenix. Phoenix has a much more functional anarchist community than som others and the article is not poorly written or irrelevant although it needs some additions.
  • Above posted by 138.23.197.236. RadicalSubversiv E 21:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep—general articles on politics in major cities are great. Everyking 15:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 21:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Ezequiel Solana de Ramirez

¿Delete. Both not noteworthy and this material is all at Javier Solana already. --SqueakBox 02:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• If the material was already at Javier Solana, why not be bold and redirect? Rossami (talk) 02:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If all the material is there, just redirect. If not, merge and redirect - David Gerard 10:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freak on a Leash

It's a KoЯn single. There's nothing here that isn't in KoЯn or Follow the Leader (Korn) already, except the lyrics, which should go anyway. --Plek 04:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a result of the rewrite: changing vote to keep. --Plek 22:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: We're not at the point, I hope, where folks are going to vote in favor of an article for every single song ever recorded. It's just a song. It's not "Satisfaction" or "Hound Dog." It's not even "Girl You Know It's True." Geogre 04:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What makes "Satisfaction" encyclopedic, and "Freak on a leash" not. Surely you don't think the merits of a song can be objectively decided? Not enough people have hummed along to it yet? Throw me a bone here... nsh 05:33, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

You have made it abundantly clear on the mailing list that you view the VfD process with scorn. Please quit making personal attacks on people who disagree with you about the encyclopedicality of articles, and just vote up and down on the subjects. RickK 21:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Rick... What is your defition of personal attack? If it includes questioning the rationale of decisions made on wikipedia, then I would recommend a revision. My opinions (or anyone else's, for that matter) play no role in deciding what questions are "askable" should such a concept even be considered. Discourse is not an activity that lends itself well to emotional involvement, and the worst emotion in this respect is anger. Peace, nsh 08:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no reason why individual song titles merit their own Wikipedia entries. Kaibabsquirrel 04:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there any more reason why individual battles, or individual mathematical theorums, deserve such articles? Where is the distinguishing principle employed here? (Honest curiosity) nsh 05:35, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - It's possible that while the song itself doesn't merit a wikipedia entry, it's video might as it was co-directed by Todd McFarlane (Spawn artist) and won a Grammy (as well as numerous other awards) Djbrianuk 05:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Stressed Comment / Query - When did there suddenly become a criterion that everyone who votes on VfD needs to know about/appreciate an article before it can be started on wikipedia? How many people here know of the Russian Constitution of 1906? Can we at least give articles that have objective and verifiable content that chance to become great. How many of you would have allowed Pet skunk when it was started? nsh 05:36, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign comment)
• Delete: article just some lyrics. 0% insight. yawn. (and I rarely vote to delete.) WpZurp 05:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

• Delete. The bulk of the article is the song lyrics...which would be a copyvio, would it not? The only original content is: "A song by the band [KoЯn]. On the album Follow the Leader (track 14) and the remix version is featured on the bands newest album Greatest Hits Volume 1 (track 13)". I'll revisit my vote if someone puts something encyclopedic here—but there's lots of room in the album article (Follow the Leader (Korn)) for expansion.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not, instead of voting to delete it, remove the questionable content and perhaps replace it with something better? It would take barely more time than this does anyway. nsh 12:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's now somewhat better. There's enough there to merge to the album (Follow the Leader (Korn)). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep hit singles, if copyvio is removed. Kappa 07:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Megan1967 07:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No articles on wikipedia would every become encyclopedic if people simply voted them for deletion instead of attempting to improve them. nsh 12:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) p.s. the article namespace _is_ editable... :-)

• Delete. While the it's indeed a hit song, this article doesn't provide any new info apart from the copyvio lyrics. I suggest additions are made to the KoЯn and Follow the Leader (Korn) before it's broken out into its own article. Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Someone else edited this, so probably unwisely, I did too. Kappa 13:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  As Martin Luther famously never said: "Even if I knew that tomorrow was the end of the world, I would plant an apple tree today". So too with articles listed for deletion. 82.92.119.11 15:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable song by notable band. The video for it won a Grammy so that certainly makes it notable for mine. Capitalistroadster 19:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge--this article has just enough material to stand alone (esp. regarding the video details), but could conceivably be merged. Do not delete the content. Meelar (talk) 20:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• An obvious keep. Any single by a famous band is notable, especially if it has a famous music video like this one did. Everyking 20:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, because it was a hit single by a notable band. Anything less would be a delete. DaveTheRed 20:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge I don't see a problem with a particular track being listed and detailed in the artist's own page, but why is it necessary to have an individual entry for it? If a particular track has had enormous cultural impact - if it has entered the national/international consciousness, then yes. 'Rhapsody in Blue' springs to mind, but I'm sure there are more modern examples. This might be a hit single (I have never heard of it - sorry), but is Wikipedia going to list people's favourite tracks by their favourite bands now? That is more the field of allmusic.com and the like. Keep the details of the track - but under the artist's name - not as an individual entry. Jez
• Keep. Notable hit single by band that started entire genre of music. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge individual tracks with the article on the album. Radiant! 11:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge and redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. proper song article. bbx 01:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Current article is absolutely fine and interesting even for a non-fan. Jgm 22:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know the first thing about KoЯn, but the song won awards, including a Grammy, and was a hit. If we delete this single, I hope we are consistant and delete all singles and categories of singles such as the "Number One singles" category, the "1999 singles" category and all of the other years, in addition to all singles like Candle in the Wind. I see no problem with leaving articles about notable singles (i.e. ones that have won awards, were big hits, started musical movements/genres, or were otherwise notable). Srcastic 07:09, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it was a hit. Although nothing would be lost by merging the content into the album article and making this a redirect - David Gerard 10:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Completely agree with Jez. Not enough to be said about it to merit an independent article. Jonathunder 06:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
• Stong keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This was a major hit for the band, and the article discusses possible meanings. There is no more reason to delete this than an article on a popular book from an author. Besides, disk space is cheap.--El-Spectre 05:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 12:59, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

• 19:44, 2005 Mar 6 Jni deleted Shivan patel (patent nonsense)
• 06:39, 2005 Mar 6 Curps deleted Shivan patel (patent nonsense; content was: 'AKA The Real Saul Smith, is the most real gangster as stated, His crew, Armnfoshaganoff, Pat Dizzle, and Big D are known to be the 'realest killaz' ...')

[edit] Shivan patel

Not notable, vanity, possibly personal attack disguised as rap lyrics. Vote to delete. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 04:29, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

• Delete: Speedy candidate for inappropriate content and a blatant hoax/libel. Geogre 04:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The {{subst:vfd}} message in the article was deleted by 4.46.106.78. I have added it back. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 04:52, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense, libel, or violating Wikipedia's "no lyrics" rule. Take your pick. 23skidoo 05:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment - someone with an apparent vested interest in this article is vandalising userpages of people like me who have voted to delete it. Not only should it be deleted, but the anon should be banned. Unfortunately the guy seems to have a changing ISP; so far I have logged 4.46.106.78 and 66.214.7.244 as vandals. Adding childish comments like "I am gay yee-hee" to a person's user page is not a way to help your cause. 23skidoo 08:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have speedy deleted it once more. Repeated vandalism. jni 19:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devonshire Cat

Non-notable pub. Almost vanity JeremyA 05:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article is POV, not enclycopedia material. Tygar 07:33, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete, advertising as currently written, even if independently Mozzerati 17:16, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• Anything useful could be merged into Kelham Island Brewery. Otherwise delete. — RJH 18:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete. There's no reason to consider this pub notable. --Jacobw 18:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• borderline delete - if it had any reason to keep, it would need a location in the name, by the way - David Gerard 10:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A personal review, not an article, and no evidence of notability for the subject. -- Infrogmation 16:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Longden

Chair of the Oxford University Labour Club is not notable. The last paragraph reads like an attack, too. RickK 06:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: the last libelous paragraph (which I removed) was added by a different IP than the original article creator. -- Curps 06:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. In a similar vein Jack Jones (LGBT Rep. of Lincoln College, Oxford, 2004-2005)? -- Curps 06:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Jack Jones has also been listed for deletion--nixie 07:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Jacobw 19:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, post may need editing, but he is a ward campaign mananger, chair of Oxford University Labour Club and a member of the Labour Party 'Block of Seven'163.1.168.96 20:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't get an article by virtue of my campus Labor club position, so neither does he. Lacrimosus 22:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and consider blocking original contributor for making an implied death threat (Trotsky and icepick as "see alsos"). RadicalSubversiv E 02:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CV - David Gerard 10:06, 11 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Longstreet (security)

Personal page - not encyclopedic doles 06:29, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Tygar 08:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, straight-up vanity. —Korath (Talk) 09:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• All that I know about this person is that in December 2004 he and a number of others made a big splash at BugTraq [2], Slashdot, and the news services ([3], [4], and the wire services), as the discoverer of a number of security flaws in Unix [5]. Given that we keep politicians' wives that make the news for reckless driving (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eli Hagen) and local politicians that make the news for writing electronic mail (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Paul Jenkins)) do we keep graduate students who make the news for making discoveries? Weak Keep. Uncle G 16:39, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Weak keep - he made a small amount of actual news in the actual world for an actual reason - David Gerard 10:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Actual Keep per above. Kappa 22:24, 11 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ferro Milone Cesare

Unverified, bordering on nonsense--nixie 07:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. A little googling turns up the fact that he has a piazza named after him in Italy (you'll have to scroll down the page a bit to find it, or do a find for "Milone.") That, combined with the fact that at least one wikipedia user considers him memorable some 70 years after his death, provides a little bit of evidence that he's notable-- very weak evidence, admittedly, but I'd rather err on the side of including information, and giving this article a chance to grow. I've revised the entry to make it coherent English. Note, however, that the name of the piazza (and the inconsistency within the article) suggest that his name might be "Cesare Ferro Milone" rather than "Ferro Milone Cesare".
  • Sorry, that vote above was me. One day, I will remember to sign my votes on the first time. --Jacobw 19:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 10:08, 11 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. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Episcopal High School

Non-notable high school. I suggest delete --Holdek 07:29, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not establish notability. Possible school vanity - User:128.189.194.161's only contribution. Megan1967 08:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, claims to be the first high school in Virginia, which would seem notable. Anyway necessary to coverage of its local area. Kappa 08:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Borderline-notable, famous alumni. Not that I doubt it, but I'd like to see some verifiable evidence that it is really "known throughout the South as 'The High School'" (mention in a newspaper story or a novel or something like that). Dpbsmith (talk) 11:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but improve. --BaronLarf 17:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't believe that most high schools belong in WP, but this article establishes enough notability for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 17:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Carrp. --Jacobw 19:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, if all it's claims to fame are true. Sources would be nice. DaveTheRed 21:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Wincoote 02:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, but I'd like to see better evidence of both its claims and its notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's not nonsense, original research or vanity, therefore the nomination is invalid deletioncruft. Keep.--Centauri 09:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. If Bill Gates wrote an article about himself, would it be grounds for deletion? What if I did? What's the difference? Notability. End of story. --Holdek 09:21, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

The notion that nominations could be invalid because they don't strictly adhere to policy, is not in itself policy - and is currently under heavy attack on VfD talk. Radiant! 11:02, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

• merge into Alexandria, Virginia and delete - Skysmith 10:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Radiant! 11:02, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Agree with Centauri that this nomination does borderline on being invalid. --GRider\^talk 23:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep as long as the claims made in the article can be verified. I'm usually of the thought that Wikipedia is not a repository of Random High School Facts ® but the prominent alumni seem to establish some notoriety. If verifiable, then clean up the article. Arkyan 02:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap. Neutrality^talk 02:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just like all other school articles.--Gene_poole 02:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless claim is verified. ComCat 04:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the claims are verified. Jonathunder 05:13, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Keep. The information is verified at the school website. Senator John McCain] one of the prominent alumni spoke at the school. This bio confirms that he attended. [7] Capitalistroadster 06:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Necrothesp 15:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Tipping my hat off to Capitalistroadster, I give this an extreme {{subst:User:Dr Zen/keepschools}} VfD is the cancer of this great project. (RIP, Dr Zen!) —RaD Man (talk) 15:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless claim is independently verified. Gamaliel 19:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've added independent sources to the article for three of the four notable alumni listed. The Washington Post, for instance, mentions that McCain graduated from this high school. [8] --BaronLarf 20:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I apologize for not being clear. I was referring to the claim that it was the oldest high school in Virginia, which would be of minor notability. I have no doubt McCain attended, but that doesn't make it notable enough for me. Gamaliel 20:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If John McCain was an alumni, then it passes the BEEFSTEW barely. Keep. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:36, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Would this picture be suitable to put into this article, if we improve it? [9] -- Riffsyphon1024 20:41, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • What if he was an alumnus? Last I checked there is only one of him...
• Keep, looks like encyclopedic topic, but definitely needs work. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:52, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep only because the claims to fame aren't verified. This could be a real keeper once it's polished. - Lucky 6.9 08:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article establishes enough notability for inclusion. Great Scott 18:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, appears notable. RadicalSubversiv E 02:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - location should be in article name, though - David Gerard 10:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yuppers, it does seem notable. --Andylkl 19:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable doc13mets
• Keep This is a fairly well-known and notable high school, like Woodberry Forest or Groton. Ridethefire3211 18:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 03:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bpcs

Software, notability not demonstrated--nixie 07:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Not obvious whether it is notable or not. Seems harmless, could be notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs more detail - David Gerard 10:08, 11 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. ugen64 03:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Chairs

Non-notable piece of fiction--nixie 07:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. 41 unique google hits. Not notable. DaveTheRed 21:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ifcomp winners might squeak in, but the genre's too marginalized these days for #2 to. —Korath (Talk)
• Delete without independent verifiability - David Gerard 10:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep a notable work of Interactive fiction, it didn't won by a small margin and got the most of 10 votes. It is also likely to win the most of XYZZY Awards, an IF equivalent of Academy Awards this year. Grue 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Blue Chairs is not only the second-place winner in the Comp, but also brought home 3 of the more notable Xyzzies (Best Story, Best Writing, Best Game). By such a reasonable metric, Blue Chairs is probably the most significant IF work of 2004. Yes, IF is a small community, but I don't think that's cause to exclude significant works from Wiki. --Jake 23:02, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Prize winner. Very well-regarded within community. Distinctive as a game.--Fangz 23:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. A little work will definitely make this a keeper. --Kwi | Talk 23:26, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It won three XYZZY awards, which is nothing to be sneezed at. Kairos 08:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 03:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breadfish

Unencyclopedic, web-animation cruft--nixie 08:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Marginal Keep. The weebl website is notable; this is a reasonably notable aspect of it. Notability isn't necessarily transitive, but on the balance, I'd keep this.
  • Above vote by Jacobw.
  • Yes, sorry, it's my vote. I seem to suffer from a chronic inability to sign my votes. --Jacobw 12:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, near BJAODN. Google gives 2000 mostly unrelated hits, so it's not a notable web phenomenon. Radiant! 11:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Jonti Picking, the author, to discourage recreation - David Gerard 10:12, 11 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. ugen64 03:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue gum lodge

School camp ground of no consequence--nixie 08:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Individual camping lodges are not inherrantly notable. DaveTheRed 21:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Can't think of anything that would render it notable. Weak delete. Lacrimosus 07:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, needs more refs and a better title - David Gerard 10:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Anywhere But Home. ugen64 03:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breathe No More

Nothing makes this Evanescence worthy of its own article--nixie 08:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The links could be merged into the Anywhere But Home, and the song author listed on that page. Otherwise it looks like a delete. — RJH 18:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ow! The POV! Merge. Snowspinner 19:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think it's a single, in which case it might be best to merge, but I'd also be fine with keeping it as an individual article. Everyking 20:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable song. The Anywhere But Home article already mentions the song, and the article is too POV to merge. DaveTheRed 19:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• either Keep or merge and redirect to Anywhere But Home. Megan1967 04:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to album. Note complete lack of content in this article - David Gerard 10:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yep, don't think it deserves its own article- merge it. Shihaisha

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 16:59, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

• 10:13, 2005 Mar 11 David Gerard deleted Brow Bones (personal attack page)

[edit] Brow Bones

Hoax, the entry is largely an ad for the website www.elchupacabra.com--nixie 08:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to be a hoax, and smells to me like a personal attack.--Jacobw 19:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. cf Jcobw. -- Infrogmation 20:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, veiled personal attack. Megan1967 04:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied as personal attack page - David Gerard 10:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 03:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bucketworks

Nothing notable about this "creative playspace"--nixie 08:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity? Delete. Tygar 08:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability somehow demonstrated. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - David Gerard 10:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to bricolage. ugen64 03:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bricoleur

dic. def. for a word with no english equivalent--nixie 08:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Orphan poor dicdef attempt. -- Infrogmation 20:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It actually could be an encyclopedic topic if anyone wants to work on it. It was evidently coined in the early 1960s from a common French word, bricolage, to describe a certain type of individual in society: "The bricoleur is adept at performing a large number of diverse tasks; but, unlike the engineer, he does not subordinate each of them to the availability of raw materials and tools conceived and procured for the purpose of the project. His universe of instruments is closed and the rules of his game are always to make do with "whatever is at hand", that is to say with a set of tools and materials which is always finite and is also heterogeneous, because what it contains bears no relation to the current project, or indeed to any particular project, but is the contingent result of all the occasions there have been to renew or enrich the stock or to maintain it with the remains of previous constructions of destructions." —Levi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. 1966 (Paperback edition; University of Chicago Press, 1968 ISBN 0226474844 ). DialUp 04:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to bricolage. -Sean Curtin 04:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per evidence provided by Dialup, or merge/ redirect to bricolage. Kappa 09:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Integrate DialUp's remarks into bricolage; Bricoleur should become a redirect to bricolage. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to bricolage (which also has a strong flavor of dictionary-definitions but is more likely to be expandable). Rossami (talk) 02:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to bricolage unless and until someone writes a real article here - David Gerard 10:15, 11 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. ugen64 03:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jingo (boat)

Not notable. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 08:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless someone can explain why this boat is notable. At the moment, this sounds like a huge number of other boats out there. Average Earthman 15:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Orphan article, no evidence of notability. -- Infrogmation 20:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without independent evidence anyone cares - David Gerard 10:15, 11 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. ugen64 03:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anomaly (US band)

Article fails to establish notability in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Band has produced only one self-financed EP. Allmusic.com entry refers to an Australian techno EP. Anomaly's website indicates the band is no longer functioning. Note Google shows up a number of bands from various countries called Anomaly, mostly metal bands from Denmark and Holland, not Utah. JamesBurns 08:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Jdcooper 14:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Classic band vanity. - Lucky 6.9 06:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Garage band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 02:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without evidence of activity other than rehearsal and Wikipedia entries - David Gerard 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity. Leanne 07:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Encona Coarse

Article fails to establish notability in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Article claims they released two EP's but does not name them. There is no entry on Allmusic.com for either the crew or MC Telltale. 19 Google hits for "Encona Coarse" and zero Google hits for "MC Telltale", see [10] and [11] respectively. The claim they were the first is unverifiable on Google, "Get a Booty Wit Dat Drink" scores Zero Google hits which leads me to believe sections of that article are possibly bogus. JamesBurns 10:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. My google results resemble the nominator's. Kappa 21:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 02:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Allmusic.com is not a suitable measure of non-US acts. That said, keep only if verifiability added; weak delete otherwise - David Gerard 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity + hoax. Leanne 07:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encona Coarse was one of the first "UK" Rap crews. The EP's Rhyme Grenade & Via Coarseville are mentioned in the following places [12] & [13]. The Name MC Tell Tale can be seen on shots of the Rhyme Grenade EP cover as said previously Allmusic.com is not a suitable measure of non-US acts
• Comment anonymous votes aren't counted. JamesBurns 05:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Total Funk

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encona Coarse. Claimed EP by MC Telltale does not show up either on Allmusic.com or Google, see [14]. JamesBurns 11:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not verifiable. — Gwalla | Talk 02:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without verifiability - David Gerard 10:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn hoax. Leanne 07:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Marcia Gay Harden. – ABCD 00:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audrey Harden

Obituary. Xezbeth 11:32, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful into Marcia Gay Harden and delete. Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obituary of an unfortunate but nonnotable child. According to IMDb's biography of MGH, her nephew died in the fire, too; does he have an article now too? --Angr 13:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Marcia Gay Harden. Megan1967 09:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect without evidence that anyone cares - David Gerard 10:21, 11 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. ugen64 04:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Valied

Pretty obvious vanity article. If they're just starting out they're hardly notable. Also includes a personal insult. — JIP | Talk 11:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable band. Article is unencyclopedic. jni 15:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 04:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 10:21, 11 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. ugen64 04:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pimpwar

Not notable. r3m0t 13:35, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. jni 19:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete - I think it's an Outwar derivative, one of the more famous ones, but the page is unencyclopedic and reeks of vanity. I don't think it's possible to salvage this one without a total rewrite. User:68.81.72.127
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ComCat 04:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, i actually played this game for a very short period. bbx 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, 27,500 google hits. Kappa 22:27, 11 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. – ABCD 00:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abdulmusawir

Originally tagged by YannisKollias, but not correctly posed to VFD. -Rholton 13:51, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, autobio, unimportant. YannisKollias 15:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible family vanity. Megan1967 04:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 10:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete completely unimportant. whoknew?

Above user has nine edits, all to VfD pages. Rhobite 02:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was use a {{wi}} tag. ugen64 04:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sped

An orphaned disambiguation page, which would be ok, except that it should never be linked to for the first meaning (a dictdef; speed, when used as a verb, shouldn't be linked to), and the second is a neologism that doesn't seem to be in widespread use. —Korath (Talk) 14:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• A classic dictionary entry that would be a prime candidate for Wiktionary ... if it weren't for the fact that Wiktionary has had sped for one and a half years, now. The "Look for Sped in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project" line on the "Wikipedia does not have an article by this name" notice was right there to be clicked upon. Delete. Uncle G 19:32, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• Redirect to speed. -Sean Curtin 00:08, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Speed. Megan1967 04:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or preferably put a {{wi}} tag there, since the speed article would be of no help to anyone looking up "sped". Kappa 22:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 10:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Military slang. – ABCD 00:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aganauten

Tagged, but not posted, by Hoheit. -Rholton 14:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of different facetious names for recruits in every army. Google finds ondly 78 "argonauts". It is just a joke and not a common expression. --Hoheit 17:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Merge a brief description into Military slang. — RJH 17:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Military slang. Megan1967 04:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 10:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above and also put a copy in the Wikictionary--LukeSurl 14:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledgeplanet

• Vanity, advertising JeremyA 15:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete. vanity -- Aleph4 15:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam, copyvio, not notable, vanity, ... jni 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Updated. Neutral Definition, no copyvio ... JBI 16:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Please do not remove the VfD tag. Write the replacement in /Temp, not in top of the article. jni 17:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. JBI 17:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete one of thousands of training companies, is not notably different or more deserving of an article than any one of them--nixie 05:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete wikipedia is supposed to be complete, all of them ideally should end up with entries--JBI 05:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Err, no. Advertising. Delete. Android79 05:07, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 02:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. Perhaps not to you, cockroaches aren't notable to me but they have an entry and I'm not complaining. JBI 05:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style and their subject is relevant enough to merit an article. External links to commercial organisations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. JBI 05:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 18:02, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

• 10:24, 2005 Mar 11 David Gerard deleted Elsewhere:Richard G./ex-premies (recreation of VFDed article deliberately hidden in obscure pseudo-namespace)

[edit] Elsewhere:Richard G./ex-premies

Some odd ex-premies artifact. Not identical to ones already deleted, but close. Delete as idiosyncratic non-topic. jni 15:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• How many g--d--- times are we going to have to delete this thing before it dies? Delete article; Delete content; Bar re-creation of this article as a subversion of VfD. The response to a consensus to delete is not "hide it away in a made-up namespace so that consensus doesn't know it's there and can't say anything about it." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, unworkable name. Jonathunder 23:32, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatantly POV non-article under gibberish title. We already have a real article on this under Criticism of Prem Rawat. I'm a little leery of "criticism of" breakouts, but that isn't at issue here. — Gwalla | Talk 02:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied this recreation - David Gerard 10:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ClubHeadBangBang

Article that mostly says what ClubHeadBangBang is not. Delete unless meaningful context can be found. jni 15:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable (4 hits on Google) vanity. JeremyA 15:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• ClubHeadBangBang is a copyright violation of [15] and an advertisement for a music venue. ClubHeadBangBand is not an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 19:05, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity, copyright violation. Megan1967 04:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisment--nixie 05:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ? i just created a stub for the organisation, it is a group of people tring to get a platform for audio/visual art forms in the capital of kerry. only resently on the web hence the lack ok google hits.

can ye tell me where the copyright voilation is, please note the club in club in clubheadbangbang means a group of people that meet weekly rather than a night club at the moment working with other oranisations: http://www.samhlaiocht.com/music.htm http://www.samhlaiocht.com/film.htm and tralee IT www.ittralee.ie

• Delete, spamvio. ComCat 04:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - needs evidence any third party cares - David Gerard 10:25, 11 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. ugen64 04:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frorange

Yet another dicdef. for made up word. Delete. jni 15:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This looks like an attempt to get a recently involved neologism into actual use. Now spreading neologisms is all well and good, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. — JIP | Talk 16:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• How many people are going to have the "I know! I'll make up a word that rhymes with orange and put it in the dictionary!" idea without reading orange first and realizing that it has been done to death? And without realizing the difference between the encyclopaedia and the dictionary? Wouldn't it be nice if, for once, they were original and made up a word that rhymed with chimney, pint, or purple? My vote is the same as it was at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Borange. Uncle G 19:14, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• Speedy delete orphan silly junk -- Infrogmation 22:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, admitted neologism, silly, even less likely than Quorange to ever even merit a dictdef. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For the record, this article has been deleted twice before already according to the Deletion log. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 03:48, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • True, but those were speedy deletes. It's not uncommon for an article to be VfD'ed after it's speedied and re-created; that way the result is decided by consensus and if it's still to delete, the article submitter can be warned that further re-creations will lead to a block or ban. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 10:30, 11 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. ugen64 04:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yasser khan

Bio stub about a web designer. Possibly vanity. Not notable. Delete. --BM 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. What is a "Confuse Dominator" anyway? jni 16:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Confused article. Not notable. Jonathunder 23:31, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:56, 7 Mar 2005
• Delete ad - David Gerard 10:30, 11 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. ugen64 04:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dane Jensen

nn. d. jni 15:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Having trouble with an airline is far from notable. --Allen3 17:35, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Tygar 18:34, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, not notable. Megan1967 09:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I once threw up on a Southwest flight where they'd neglected to restock the barf bags...do I get an article? — Gwalla | Talk 03:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ha ha ha. Delete - David Gerard 10:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete why is that there

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was pending deletion. ugen64 04:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early Days & Latter Days: The Best of Led Zeppelin Volumes One and Two

Advert for a boxed set containing Early Days: Best of Led Zeppelin Volume One and Latter Days: Best of Led Zeppelin Volume Two albums. Marketing decisions to bundle products together does not make the aggregate notable. Delete as unnecessary duplication. jni 16:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, duplication, promo. Megan1967 04:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Duplication. I am the one that added the merge notice, but yeah definately delete. Jaberwocky6669 20:53, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• I have this set. Great stuff...but delete as duplication of existing info. - Lucky 6.9 08:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge ... somewhere. Horrible, horrible titles - David Gerard 10:33, 11 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. ugen64 04:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False flag

Personal essay. If the personal essay were removed, it would be at best a dicdef. While an encyclopedia article could conceivably be written on this topic, this isn't it, and it is probably better to delete it and let someone else start over from scratch one day.

• Delete. --BM 16:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It is an important topic. It should remain as a starting point. It's a lazy stunt to simply quickly read it and vote for its rejection. What you should do instead is to improve it. That would be the responsible thing to do. If you don't want Wikipedia to contain explanations of substantive issues, then say so. If you are willing to spend any of your time improving on the explanation of false flag then do that. At least point out the factual errors, or provide a logical refutation of the statements I made. - Bill Cannon

• User's second edit; first was to create the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. - Should be re-writen and added a covert operations
• Keep, has obvious potential for expansion. I should point out to Bill Cannon that it's not wikipedia's job to refute things, it's your job to prove someone else said them, otherwise they count as original research Kappa 19:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I went ahead and cleaned it up, somewhat undermining my own nomination. Look in the history for the original personal essay. It is now basically just a dicdef, and still should be deleted. --BM 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Espand. I have expanded this so that it is a stub. I have added the Lavon Affair as an example of a false flag operation and added the derivation from the militay False colors. Capitalistroadster 09:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect False colors here. The countries that drafted the Geneva conventions thought false flag operations important enough to include a provision allowing them. Gazpacho 11:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the content with that of false colors, under one title or the other. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but Don't Merge With regard to keep; in our era there are governments with governments with secret budgets of $billions annually. There is absolutely no way a person can grasp the truth of events in our era without an acknowledgement and understanding of the role played by false flag events. False Flag is the only coathook in the closet upon which we can hang the strange, almost mystical coat that, until now, nobody admits to owning or wearing. With regard to Don't Merge; False Colors is an operation that only a military unit can execute but False Flag is an operation that any group of people can carry out. Mark Hardy

• User's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. False Flag is an extraordinarily relevant concept in modern political, military and economic reality. I see no justification entered thus far for deleting the explanation of this concept within Wikipedia. GeneMosher

• User's fifth edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Certainly notable in principle; bad idea, and indeed rather un-wiki, to delete on the basis of current content. (Which yes, could certainly do with being expanded.) Alai 04:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I want references to the term being in use - David Gerard 10:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Mark Hardy is absolutely correct. An understanding of the real functioning of the 'National Security State' is only possible if the workings of the intelligence services are brought to light. The term 'False Flag' has gained new currency following the september 11 attacks and has recently been employed in several public addresses regarding the War on Terror's enabling event. See Ralph Schoenman's testimony to the 9/11 Inquiry Conference: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/04/103863.shtml A good, if somewhat slanted, overview of these kinds of operations can be found here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/ User:Maiasta 0:43, 12 Mar 2005

• User's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dicdef, and even then not being used correctly, based on recent insertions. Clearly a vehicle for political agendists, no more; sockpuppet support confirms this. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have watched you, Jayjg, in various topics, using your position as administrator, intervening in various topics all over the place with what looks very much like censorship to me. I can see that many people have attempted to refine, expand and clarify the information in Wikipedia about topics such as apartheid, racism, even the USS Liberty incident, etc., and here, false flags but that you are always there to ensure that no negative references to anyone Jewish or anything Israeli is ever allowed to stay. At least here in the area where we are free to discuss the validity of the phenomenon of false flags you have no justification for removing what I have to say about you. I say again, that the phenomenon of false flag operations is utterly relevant to understanding events in the contemporary world, and an explanation of it, with examples, is essential here in Wikipedia, in spite of your effort here to quash the discussion by declaring as invalid the very inclusion of the topic in Wikipedia itself. I do not appreciate what you are doing here, clear as it is to me, and disgusting as it is to me. I don't like censorship and I don't like how you achieve it here in Wikipedia in your own small way. The strength of the arguments made here in support of not deleting this page is evidence enough for keeping this page ini Wikipedia. You are the one who has a political agenda here, not me. Shame on you. And I will document your behavior, to reveal you as the de facto censor that you are. If it looks like I'm a sockpuppet because I forgot to log on for one of my comments then shame on you again for jumping on that and adding an interpretation to that which you know darn well is NOT an intentional effort to introduce the sockpuppet effect here. Bill Cannon 14:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I've watched you "Bill", and the various other sockpuppets you are using here (the ones you call "many other people"), and seen your absurdly POV "contributions" to Wikipedia. In any event, that's not relevant to this Vote for Deletion, which was not initiated by me. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should be upset, and you should be concerned, because I will deliver, and I will expose your tactics and your intent. You clearly don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia except by censoring, for you surely don't add facts or material that can inform others in all your visits here, but instead use your position to demean others, to attempt to muffle their contributions when it threatens your work to keep Wikipedia from being a source of knowledge that actually explains things as they are. The importance of a thorough explanation of the false flag phenomenon in today's world is clear from the way that it threatens the role you have settled into here and no amount of "lable throwing" or "name calling" at my on your part adds any rational support to any argument supporting deletion of this topic. Instead, it provides evidence that this topic IS important, and that its deletion will weaken Wikipedia as an uncensored source of facts and information about the world we live in. I expected an ad hominem attack; it reveals the bankruptcy of your position and your fearful desperation that someone would see through it so readily. Your ad hominem attack is as irrelevant here to the discussion as any specious comments can be and I reject its appropriateness. I challenge you to lay out any argument for deletion rationally, if you can. Challenge the ideas, not the people who present them. That's the standard here for Wikipedia and its "administrators" if Wikikpedia and its "administrators" are what they pretend to be.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 04:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yoko Yamauchi

Biographical article about the daughter of the former president of Nintendo, and wife of the former president of Nintendo USA. Does not seem to have any independent notability. Delete. --BM 16:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep "spousecruft". Kappa 19:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable as herself. Megan1967 05:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to her husband or father--nixie 05:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect ... somewhere - David Gerard 10:33, 11 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. ugen64 04:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Harlin

Bio stub about the manager of public relations at Nintendo USA. Mid-level manager and not encyclopedically notable. Possible vanity. Might be the person who is adding articles about more senior Nintendo figures, and he decided to throw one in a bout himself (but that is just speculation.) Delete. --BM 16:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, PR managers aren't inheriently notable--nixie 05:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence provided that it passes a "so what?" test - David Gerard 10:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 00:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor executives are not notable. Gamaliel 02:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beth Llewelyn

Bio stub about a mid-level manager at Nintendo America. Not encyclopedically notable. Delete. --BM 16:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep senior directors of public relations in large countries. Kappa 19:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor executives are not notable or encyclopedic. Gamaliel 16:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Middle management is not inherently notable. Even VPs are pushing it. — Gwalla | Talk 03:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence provided that it passes a "so what?" test - David Gerard 10:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 00:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew U. D. Straw

• Not notable, vanity, written in first person. Delete. jni 16:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I figured it would have been speedyed... Some mix of vanity/advertising. Bushytails 16:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. -- Cleduc 05:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Delete posthaste! Convention dictates that one has to do something noteworthy to merit encyclopedic mention (and even this isn't a sufficient condition). Does this guy think Wikipedia's a CV exchange? Not to mention the vanity... 163.1.159.21 02:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Now blanked. Delete anyway - David Gerard 10:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am the original author. I did not realize that there was such a thing as a user page, where content like mine would have been more appropriate. Please delete this page and I will create a user page instead. All of the critical comments above were unnecessary, IMHO. A simple explanation of how to create a user page would have been far more helpful. 12:57, 16 Mar 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. ugen64 04:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pajawa

Slang dicdef, at least. Delete. --BM 16:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, I couldn't find any google results indicating actual use. Kappa 19:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, orphan silly junk. -- Infrogmation 22:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep: this is a commonly used word amongst todays youth. keep it - This edit by User:205.244.100.206
  • Today's youth apparently also likes to blank Vfd pages and remove Vfd tags. Please disregard 205's vote. JFW | T@lk 03:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it is real, and I doubt it, it serves no purpose in an encyclopedia. --Feitclub 02:30, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Real or neologism, wikipedia is not a dictionary. JeremyA 02:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, dictionary defintion. Megan1967 05:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At best a dicdef. Looks like a neologism. Borders on nonsense. Jonathunder 06:21, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. JFW | T@lk 03:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and delete - David Gerard 10:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Culture of Japan. ugen64 04:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geinokai

Dicdef. Japanese word for the "world of entertainment". Delete. --BM 16:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand (and/or maybe merge with Culture of Japan) . Entertainment is important to the Japanese. Failing that, transwiki to wiktionary. Kappa 19:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sure, entertainment is important to many folks, once their basic needs are met. However, that doesn't mean that the English Wikipedia (or the English wiktionary, for that matter) needs a separate article on all the words for entertainment that exist in a couple of thousand human languages Unless there is some evidence that the word is in the process of being adopted into English. --BM 20:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The english wiktionary certainly wants all the words for entertainment in all languages. What wikipedia doesn't have is an article for Japanese entertainment although Culture of Japan is close, maybe it could be merged into that. Kappa 21:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The remit of Wiktionary is all words in all languages. Being the English Wiktionary means that the articles are written in English, not that it only covers words in the English language. Thus article titles can be in any language, and indeed as per Wiktionary policy should be in the script of the language concerned. (So the articles at Wiktionary would be Wiktionary:芸能界 and Wiktionary:芸能人, and not Wiktionary:geinokai and Wiktionary:geinojin.) In contrast, article titles in Wikipedia are in English (as per the naming conventions). However, I'd like to see evidence of widespread use of these romanizations. If they aren't terms that English speakers would actually use, then they don't justify their being articles. Uncle G 00:36, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
      • Just googling "geinokai" gets plenty of hits from English speakers using the word in English. Incidentally wikionary will be pretty useless to me if I can't use romaji to find kanji. Kappa 01:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not the place of dictionary definitions, and the process of having these type of articles moved to the wiktionary seems to be completely broken.--nixie 05:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. Radiant! 11:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, perhaps in another category. Frankly, I'm new to this and thought I understood the rules regarding categorization, so I'd be willing to see this put someplace more appropriate. That said, regarding BM's comment that this is just a dicdef of 'entertainment,' the Geinokai is an untranslatable concept in English, and as a social phenomenon does not map 1-to-1 with the 'world of entertainment' or 'entertainment,' etc. It goes beyond that, and is a much narrower concept, so I thought it would be useful to include an article about it, since there's articles about Japanese idols, tarento and so on. If those things, which have obviously been recognized as independent concepts worthy of articles, are included, it would make sense to keep Geinokai. Of course, the article would have to be expanded to make this clear. Reldam 21:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately while the policy says "dicdef 'with no potential for expansion", in practise people vote delete anyway, so the expansion can't happen. Maybe wikipedia isn't the best place to try and cover non-English-using cultures. Kappa 01:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Mabye this, and other Japanese (non-english) words would be better explained and less likely to be put up for vfd if they were included in some kind of article or list, like List of Japanese words related to entertainment- with the individual words are redirects to the list. I guess it would be like a glossary.--nixie 02:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with these comments. Japanese popular culture has taken on a life of its own among non-Japanese-speaking peoples (the US and France coming foremost to mind), and as evidenced by other articles specifically defining Japanese words in common use among such fans, there is clearly a niche. Maybe a category called "Japanese popular culture" could be created, under which everything from manga to tarento could be included. As I said before, however, I'm new to this, so I don't know how one would go about doing this. Reldam 18:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Unless someone can make a credible argument that Japanese entertainment is significantly different from everyone else's entertainment (and enough different that it deserves a breakout from Culture of Japan), I have to vote to Transwiki to Wiktionary. Reldam hints that there might be differences but didn't provide evidence. If the article is expanded before the discussion period ends, I'll reconsider my vote. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course Japanese entertainment is different from everyone else's. Practically every country's entertainment is significantly different from every other's. Kappa 10:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I thought you couldn't expand articles that were being voted on. Basically, there are so many articles specific to Japanese culture (Japanese idol, manga, mangaka (what other culture has its own list of comicbook writers? - and in so many languages?), tarento, etc.) that Geinokai would be an umbrella for them all. If there's no room for Geinokai, then would we delete or transwiki all the other Japan-specific articles? An expanded Geinokai article would discuss the production company system, how scouting works, the Yakuza connection, and more. My argument is that there are so many Japanese pop culture-specific articles (and not just in the English Wikipedia) because Japanese pop culture is unique in the world today, and is beginning to have an influence (although in a different way) like US and British culture had in the 60s. Reldam 07:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You certainly can improve articles during Vfd, although you may have to nag some people to reconsider their votes. An expanded Geinokai article would be a useful way to link the other J-culture items together, but they would still deserve their own articles. Another possibility would be to write about the geinokai in Culture of Japan, then break it out when its a decent size Kappa 10:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll do that, then. That seems like a more appropriate method. Reldam 19:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Unless significantly expanded, merge and redirect to Culture of Japan, with potential for spinning it back out in the future. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds great. I'll look up how to do that, and do it. Incidentally, who's monitoring this and will make the final decision? Reldam 07:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Several people are monitoring in various degrees. I'm not sure exactly which admin or admins work out what the consensus is about each page, but they seem to be pretty good at it. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Culture of Japan, which already has a significant section on Japanese pop culture. — Gwalla | Talk 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Great! So should I just cut and paste, or is there a particular procedure for doing this, or what? I don't know what will happen to the actual entry, so I'll just paste what I've got so far into the Culture of Japan article, and let the powers that be do what needs to be done with the Geinokai page. Reldam 18:55, 11 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. ugen64 04:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2027 (number)

Delete This is not encyclopedic, there is nothing special about this number, do we have an entry for all numbers up to some arbitrary limit? PatGallacher 17:02, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

• Keep. Small primes are encyclopedic. I can think of people searching individual numbers from Wikipedia. jni 17:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Apart from the roman numerals, what does the page say that List of prime numbers does not? Indeed what can the page say that List of prime numbers does not? Uncle G 20:02, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • And were this article to be deleted, they would still find what they seek—at List of prime numbersDpbsmith (talk)
• Keep small(ish) twin primes. Kappa 19:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) OK no vote for the moment. Kappa 23:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The List of twin primes currently goes up to (1019, 1021). If someone wanted to expand it up to and including (2027, 2029) that would be commendable. And there's plenty of room. What is gained by having a separate article for one individual twin prime? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not particularly small, and it's not even a small twin prime, thus not interesting enough for its own article. The only incoming link is as an example excretion of the Prime Number Shitting Bear, which presumably explains its creation. sjorford →•← 23:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially a dictdef. But do not move to Wiktionary!. As noted above, if someone wanted to List of twin primes up to and including (2027, 2029) that might be a useful thing to do. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I wish to confirm my vote for Deletion. Just look at the addition we've just had, this comes close to being pure gibberish. What on earth does it mean to say that a number is close to being a non-prime? I did vote before, I am not trying to vote twice. PatGallacher 02:20, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Comment. Should be deleted but now, IMHO, it does rise to the level of BJAODN. I love the suggestion of a practical application: "If one needs to store exactly 300,000 units of a product in a storage area of narrow dimensions, and 150 units wide is not an option, one can come very close to the goal with a length of 2027 units." I certainly hope the recent additions are a mischievous joke and not serious. By the way, googling on 2027 reveals many other vacuous and silly pseudo-facts that could be added to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "In some instances 2027 comes very close to being non-prime, but does not quite make it." In some instances this article comes very close to making sense, but does quite make it. Jonathunder 05:39, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

  Note that the gibberish trivia was added after this was proposed to deletion, at the time it was a perfectly valid number stub. I have reverted the anon, feel free to move his text to BJAODN or merge some of it back to the head revision. jni 06:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Raving Loony 10:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) [Note: this is user's third edit. His first edit was to some page about lasson/Faethon and second was a (invalid) vote cast in VfU. jni 11:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ]
• Delete as irrelevant number. We do not need articles on several thousands of individual numbers. Radiant! 11:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A number should be very remarkable to deserve its own article. Carrp | Talk 13:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable just for being a prime. No symbolic meaning. JFW | T@lk 03:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, even if it is a twin prime. DaveTheRed 08:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I dunno, I found this interesting: "As a factor in multiplication, 2027 produces some notable numbers very close to large round base 10 numbers: 2027 x 37 = 74,999, 2027 x 74 = 149,998, 2027 x 148 = 299,996 and 2027 x 296 = 599,992." Delete, tho, unless someone feels we need articles on every single number. Ketsy 23:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a big deal, and other primes are better. 3001 × 2999 = 8999999. And—get this!—2999 is prime, too!
• Keep, for people like the preteen maths nerd I once was - David Gerard 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't care if Wikipedia is not paper. I believe is was a colleague of Ramanujan who proved that every number is "special" in some way, and this article doesn't even do a good job of explaining why 2027 is special. There are an infinite number of integers, and they can't all have articles. Even the project to do an article on every Bible verse has more merit than this, because at least it, unlike the integers, is drawn from an exhaustible source. NTK 05:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Our image of the Prime number shitting bear catches him in the very act of shitting—2027! In the words of the Church Lady, "Well, isn't that special?" Dpbsmith (talk) 12:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Very funny. No. NTK 14:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • BTW, I thought it was Hardy, and the story I remember is that a colleague said that 1729 was boring, and whoever it was said "Not at all. It is the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep this and all numbers nanaszczebrzeszyn

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. ugen64 04:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Hulstrunk

The usual sort of vanity. Not notable. Delete. jni 17:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete He was born, moved, and went to school. Yawn. -- Infrogmation 22:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, probable vanity. Jonathunder 05:33, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to tetralogy. ugen64 04:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quadrilogy

Dicdef, neologism. Delete. --BM 17:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Infrogmation 22:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to tetralogy. -Sean Curtin 00:09, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Tetralogy. Megan1967 05:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 10:38, 11 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. ugen64 04:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Family monarchy

Idiosyncratic non-topic. Delete. --BM 17:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's not something the contributor made up, it's at least mentioned in a textbook called "A History of Western Society". [16]. Provisional merge/redirect to Napoleonic Code Kappa 22:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 05:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless as it stands. I'd reconsider if someone actually wants to write an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 10:38, 11 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. ugen64 04:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nasrullah Warren

Stumbled across this brief page. It appears to be factual, apart from the claim of renown. I can't find anything significant he's done, other than teach at a muslim college. — RJH 04:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible family vanity. Megan1967 05:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Possible vanity? I doubt it - the guy was teaching in 1895! - Mustafaa 05:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails the professor test. Radiant! 11:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand, I would imagine that any British convert to Islam at this period, especially a scholar, would have potential for an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs a hell of a lot more though - David Gerard 10:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, old enough not to be vanity, 1895 makes him interesting. Kappa 22:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Middlesbrough F.C. ugen64 04:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roary the Lion

A mascot of some football team. Delete. jni 18:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I believe that this is the mascot of Middlesbrough F.C., an apparently notable football club. I think a merge and redirect is appropriate, unless someone can expand this article to give better detail. Meelar (talk) 20:12, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect (but don't delete) mascots of articled football clubs, unless they are as well-known as Cyril the Swan. Kappa 21:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the club is notable but the mascot isnt. Megan1967 05:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any pertinent info and redirect to the main article. Personally, I wouldn't look up the mascot before looking up the team. - Lucky 6.9 04:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the football club - David Gerard 10:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Middlesbrough FC. Grue 17:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wholeness

This page is clearly a non-NPOV product of original research. I was willing to just slap an NPOV tag on it and leave it be, but as John Gohde points out, that's only a temporary measure. In terms of permanent measures that can fix the problems with this page, the only thing I can think of is deletion. If someone else can think of a better way to fix the page, I'll take it, but for now, I vote to remove this page. --Carl 17:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Snowspinner 20:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - A clear violation of WP:POINT. Pure sour grapes on the part of a bunch of malcontents who think that the NPOV guidelines don't apply to them. {{NPOV}} must be discussed in talk and is a temporary measure whereby the person posting the notice has time to revise the article. Clearly nothing was changed because nothing needed to be changed. This is a perfectly valid article, but even if it is not their clear violation of WP:POINT means keep the article, revised it, or otherwise, STOP whining about what somebody else has written in good faith. -- John Gohde 10:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not proposing to delete the article to prove a point. I'm proposing to delete the article because I don't believe it can be fixed. You say that it not being changed after receiving the NPOV tag is proof that it is NPOV. I say it's suggests that no one saw this article (since it's not a topic most people would look up normally) and those who did see it couldn't think of a way to fix it. Obviously, I don't want the article deleted so quickly that we can't get any opinions on how to fix it (or even if it needs to be fixed at all, as Snowspinner and I believe and you, John, apparently don't). But in terms of permanent solutions to the problems with the article-- namely while the ideas in it are interesting, they strike me as original research-- deletion is all I can think of. If you disagree with my assertion that the article is original research, I invite you to show me a number of links to reputable and unrelated websites which use the term "Wholeness" in the same way that it's used in the article. If we can do that, it will be a good first step to making it seem less like original research. If we can't do that, then I think it would be best to delete the article because Wikipedia isn't a place for new ideas to emerge but one for old ideas to be categorized. --Carl 11:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The first step in posting a successful temporary {{NPOV}} notice is to specify in Talk what is precisely wrong with the article. Mushy feel good talk does not qualify as discussing it in talk. -- John Gohde 16:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • John is right - an NPOV tag needs a note on talk as to why the tag is there, and preferably some suggestions of what to do about it. Though IMO "this is just POV original research" would qualify if you thought that - David Gerard 19:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of how it was nominated, the article looks entirely like unverifyable original research to me. --Plek 19:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it stands, it is a personal essay, original research. As for whether "wholeness" as a concept is an encyclopedia topic: I doubt it; but if it is, then it is better to delete this and let someone else start from scratch some day. The nomination could have been more crisp, I'm afraid. The stuff about the NPOV tag seems to be entirely a red herring. --BM 19:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research. Keep if third-party references can be found and the refs actually support it Redirection to holism seems best and will discourage recreation - David Gerard 19:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 19:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. After a bit more research, another possibility is to simply to make it a redirect to holism. I'm not sure "wholeness" is the search term that someone researching "holism" would enter, but if it isn't deleted, I'd favor the redirect. --BM 20:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Angr 20:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Holism. (Protect redirect if needed.) Present content should be deleted; personal essay, original research, unsourced and unreferenced and has been around for well over six months during which people have had a chance to add sources or references and have not done so. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Wholeness are holism aren't quite the same, but I think that holism sufficiently captures the relevant ideas in wholeness, and unlike wholeness is a generally recognized concept. --Carl 01:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, and by its very nature not salvageable. -- Cleduc 05:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay, not enyclopedic. Kosebamse 16:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to holism, which is what this article is actually referring to in its roundabout and POV way. — Gwalla | Talk 03:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 08:53 Z

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. ugen64 04:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ciaran McAleer

• No hits on Google for "Ciaran McAleer" "botanist". Not notable, or as is more likely, a hoax article. The photograph is also suspicious. Cyr has also created Giles Ashford, which is in much the same vein. Delete. --khaosworks 20:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if he/she were a real person, the article has no content. Bushytails 20:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this page and the photograph (under the out-of-focus criterion). --Angr 21:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can find no evidence of a Ciaran McAleer being a notable botanist, and even if they were, the photo is clearly nothing to do with this at all and is the work of a vandal. Average Earthman 23:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs more content, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is a hoax, apart from the photo
• Keep. Could the original poster comment?

Both "Keep" votes by the same user, and only contribution. Possible sockpuppet. --khaosworks 12:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - David Gerard 10:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to commons. ugen64 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of art by Gustave Doré

I created this a while ago, before the Wikimedia Commons was created. Move to Commons. Neutrality^talk 20:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Move Agreed, verified, go ahead. -- Cleduc 05:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to commons - David Gerard 10:40, 11 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. ugen64 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giles Ashford

Delete as nonnotable and/or vanity and/or possible hoax. There is a fairly well-known photographer named Giles Ashford, but googling <"Giles Ashford" cannabis> gets zero hits. --Angr 21:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A quick google on Eastenders fan clubs doesn't find this name connected to any major fan club. Cite is required. Average Earthman 23:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did a Google search for "Giles Ashford" and found loads and loads of hits. But they're all about a photographer or a movie actor (who may or may not be the same person). This is certainly not the same Giles Ashford. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete since no verifiability is supplied - David Gerard 10:41, 11 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. ugen64 04:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ademilton dos Santos

Heaviest baby born in Brazil, 2005. Wikipedia is not the Guniess Book of World Records--nixie 22:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, concur with Peta, as with my other previous votes on these. Megan1967 05:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. & Guniess ==> Guinness -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - David Gerard 10:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but would prefer it merged somewhere eventually. If the child survives I would not want there to be a complete biography of his otherwise non-notable life 30 years from now, but I would like to see the basic info about his birth (the date, his birth weight, place of birth, name, special conditions/circumstances) preserved somewhere on Wikipedia. Everyking 12:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep hoping to merge into something eventually, per above. Kappa 22:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, prefer to incorporate this into a "birth anomalies" page, and take the reference out from 2005_births category.--168.122.146.211 08:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge this into a "birth anomalies" page like 168.122.146.211 said above. Neutrality^talk 06:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Foursqare

Promotional and/or vanity. Delete. 209.233.5.162 23:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, article name is incorrect. It should be DJ Foursquare. Megan1967 05:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Promo. Recover content if anyone cares, else delete (no redirect as spelling error) - David Gerard 10:56, 11 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.