Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 9

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (10 keep, 3 merge, 2 keep/merge, 1 delete). Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Traya

Should this be deleted? Kept? Or merged to List of Star Wars Sith characters? Or something completely different? 88 unique google hits are returned for this particular Sith character. --GRider\^talk 00:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with something or keep. Kappa 01:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unsure about the notability, but article is detailed and presumably accurate. - Jpo 01:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. ComCat 02:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Minor villains in Star Wars. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:38, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; no reason not to as Wikipedia is not Paper blah blah, and merging somehwere else would just muddy that article. Jgm 03:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 03:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as per Riffsyphon, or perhaps just delete. If this guy is only from a video game then I'm leaning towards the latter. -R. fiend 06:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • He's still a character created by LucasArts, which I believe is at least worthy of a merge. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Be bold. Radiant! 09:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Jgm.--Jacobw 10:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge though I hope somebody at Lucasfilm wises up to the fact that creating tons of new minor Darths takes away somewhat from the uniqueness of the truly great villain Darth Vader. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

  If that someone has a beard and merchandising rights, I think your hope is wasted. Gazpacho

• Comment. When I was younger, I used to have an encyclopedia of literary characters... perhaps Wikipedia should spin off a separate wiki for collections of fictitious characters and fictitious worlds (of which there are plenty here) - and restrict the regular Wikipedia to fictional characters and worlds that are notable to a significant population... i.e. that come up as pop culture references or the like. --BD2412 23:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Like "Wikicruft", or something. Might work. Anyways, I gotta say weak keep. For fairly notable characters in highly notable computer RPGs, which link up to a larger, ultra-notable universe, that's how it should be. See Sarevok and Minsc.-LtNOWIS 02:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean something akin to Memory Alpha? Uncle G 17:11, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Keep or merge/redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I am changing my vote to Keep, based upon the reasoning that GRider has been putting at least 10 SW articles of good quality up for deletion. To merge this with the Villians article would clutter it, as Jgm said previously. The article is large to hold its own. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThe article is fairly long and seems accurate. The person who wrote it must have gathered a lot of information, presumably from the video game he/she mentions at the beginning of the article. I would hate to see this article go, and maybe, as a user above mentions, there should be a Wikipedia for fictional things. Perhaps something like 'Wikific' or 'Wikifiction'.

User:KFan II 11:15 AM, March 11, 2005

• Keep. Encyclopedic, interesting and even esoteric. I like it. - Lucky 6.9 09:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I wouldn't fit Darth Traya into the Villains article anyways, as she's quite a complex character. Wakuseino 05:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The character is notable in the Star Wars universe. Carbonite | Talk 05:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 03:24, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FTOSX

Non-notable operating system by deleted Future Technologies (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Future Technologies).

Admittedly googling for FTOSX gets 57000 hits. But if you discount stuff by Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando (the founder of Future Technologies), all that's left is FTP directory trees. (Note that http://www.rpmparadaise.org belongs to Dr. Orlando.) I thought this was an indicative example.

Googling for FTOSX -FTP -wikipedia gets 20000 hits. Among these, the best I could find was [1], which refers in passing to FTOSX as a "dominant Linux distribution".

• Delete. If this were notable, there would be loads of web sites by people other than Orlando talking about it. dbenbenn | talk 23:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep with that many Google hits, it seems to be widespread, even if much (all?) of the promotion is the result of one person. I'd keep it for now and revisit the issue in a few years to see whether it's stood the test of time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, because FTOSX certainly isn't "dominant" among Linux distributions, and after watching the field for years, I've never seen reason to believe that it's even "notable" in its area, let alone influential among society in general. 205.247.102.130 18:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote was mine, not logged in. Barno 21:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Dbenbenn. Radiant! 11:07, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. Weak keep only if verifiable third-party evidence that anyone gives two hoots can be added - David Gerard 00:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. ElBenevolente 04:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability, likely self-promotion. RadicalSubversiv E 09:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muskogee County, Oklahoma, Bad Roads

A two-for-one special. Original research and a POV rant combined. Delete. Miss Pippa 00:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'll admit that it made me chuckle, but delete nonetheless. RidG (talk) 00:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV. pode 00:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. - Jpo 01:40, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 03:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe encourage the author to add NPOV descriptions to the articles about the highways. --SPUI (talk) 03:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Remes 14:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. Seems like he should take up his beef with the county instead of here, eh? - Lucky 6.9 22:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Plus this guy sounds like he could run for mayor there. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:48, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is a platform for a campaign for county highway commissioner, not an encyclopedia article. No realistic chance of becoming one, either. Sounds like he's not particularly proud to be from there, thus violating the important Merle Haggard Principle upon which all subsequent Oklahoman civilization has been based. Rlquall 03:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What Rlquall said. With oak leaf clusters. Delete. Edeans 17:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Costa

An apparent vanity page. See also related page Joseph H Costa. -Rholton 00:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm always amused to see a self-proclaimed "genious" unable to spell that relatively simple word. RidG (talk) 00:33, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. - Jpo 01:39, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Deeleete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity --Jacobw 16:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Such a sad fate (fait) for a one-time "geniuos", but "delete" it is. Rlquall 05:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity Tobycat 05:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph H Costa

An apparent vanity page. See also related page Joe Costa. -Rholton 00:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. - Jpo 01:38, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Deeleete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --Jacobw 16:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme predjudice. Not even good vainty. Beyond unencyclopedic. Rlquall 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:19, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Troy Simpson

Appears to be vanity. The second line is an unhelpful response to the request for expansion. - BanyanTree 00:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• User 128.227.105.96 blanked the page since the VfD tag. May as well just speedy it, since it seems to be a possible user test. RidG (talk) 00:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. possible vanity. Megan1967 03:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity. (Also, it was cleared by 128.227.105.96, I've restored it. -- Plutor 17:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity? Seems more like libel to me. Delete. Edeans 17:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP following a rewrite (9 keep, 1 delete). Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Assassination of Richard Nixon

Bordering on patent nonsense. RidG (talk) 00:40, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it is the name of a movie, with Sean Penn I believe, so I'm sure it can be easily fixed. Adam Bishop 00:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Current content: "Richard Nixon was not assasinated. He died of a stroke on April 22, 1994". Since this is the title of a movie, the current content is irrelevant and could be speedy deleted. Or someone could fix it. Kappa 01:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite Kappa 09:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I "fixed" it--well, made it into a stub about the movie, at least. Demi 02:03, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete, not a notable film. Megan1967 03:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as edited. If a film has been released, it's notable. And even if it's soon to be released, it's often still notable. I've seen press about this movie already. 23skidoo 15:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with edits by Demi. How is a movie with Sean Penn and Naomi Watts not notable? DaveTheRed 04:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Stong Keep. How Megan can vote delete for this yet keep on Honey Glaze is beyond me. Xezbeth 06:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Because I substantially expanded the Honey Glaze article. Would I vote against an article I put work into? Don't think so.. Megan1967 07:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Presumably people expand articles because they think they are worth keeping, not vice versa. -R. fiend 06:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dude, Honey Glaze is by Michael Legge! The Michael Legge...need I say more? Anyway, keep this, as a film that by all indications passes wikipedia's very lax inclusion criteria for films. -R. fiend 06:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As I've noted elsewhere, Megan likes to vote keep on articles that should be deleted and delete on articles that should be kept. Keep the rewrite. RickK 06:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep it civil please. Radiant! 09:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Civility still allows us to discuss other people's voting patterns. Kappa 09:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with Kappa. And besides, asserting that a voter makes some apparently contradictory calls is not inherently uncivil. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up (Wikipedia:Check your fiction) - this film is about a real 1974 assassination attempt. --iMb~Mw 06:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as currently rewritten, as an article about an adequately notable film. -- Curps 07:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, the current rewrite rules. Keep. Thanks, Demi. — JIP | Talk 10:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Xezbeth did most of the work. Demi 16:23, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Keep, thanks to the rewrite. Remes 14:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good save. Edeans 17:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 03:18, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quadrado

Non-notable or prank--6 displayed hits for Quadrado Paracho, all of which are WP mirrors/forks. Sole contrib is one of the anons that brought us Lars Olsen, above, as well as occasional vandalism[2]. Niteowlneils 00:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Could this be speedied as patent nonsense? Otherwise delete--nixie 02:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 03:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verification is presented. If only a few of them exist, there might be a notability issue even if true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that only a few exist may make them notable, of course. There's only one Mona Lisa, after all. ☺ However, I cannot find anything that verifies the existence of this brand, and the supplied description is so generic that it even fits the picture at electric guitar. Delete. Uncle G 17:19, 2005 Mar 11 (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 based on majority of voters or default because there was no concensus (9 keep, 4 delete). Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mirza Ghulam Hafiz

Appears to be a vanity page.

(Note: above nomination by Ragib)

• Dead guys don't normally write vanity pages, its not written in an encyclopedic fashion but this guy does seem to have been the Speaker of the Bangladesh Parliament 1979-1982, clean-up and keep'--nixie 02:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keepRefdoc 02:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, not vanity, but may be a whole lot of cleaning up. The page sounds like an advertisement rather than a biographical info. Also some claims are exaggarated quite a lot. Checking into Bangladesh history or politics, the claims in the article doesn't hold water. Also, some parts look quite odd ... more like a family-sponsored advertisement. So, definitely delete --Ragib 03:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, rantish, advertisement. Megan1967 03:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not verifiable (or, if you will, false) Radiant! 09:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and delete any individual parts that are demonstrably false. The main objection to this seems to be the non-neutral POV. I've therefore cleaned up the article, removed some of the more subjective or forward-looking claims, and attempted to make it a neutral POV throughout. (I've refrained from changing any of the factual information, since I'm not qualified to judge its accuracy.) Unless the original writer is making things up wholesale, Hafiz and his wife are both clearly notable. --Jacobw 10:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The subject was a high-ranking Bengladeshi politician. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. Remes 14:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Ragib and Radiant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Jacobw's cleaned-up page, perhaps mark for requested further fact-checking. Revised article now establishes WP-worthy notability and removed the family and POV problems. Barno 16:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As it is now, it looks perfectly keepworthy. Also, today is my birthday. DS 00:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Provided that there can be some references and verification. Srcastic 06:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Still needs some more cleanup and verfication, but this guy is obviously notable. We should be very careful about our own systemic bias in considering nominations like these. RadicalSubversiv E 09:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough to be quoted on Bangladesh government website.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whoosh_the_Ninja

Delete Looks like advertising. pode 00:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertinanity. Demi 01:50, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete no hits on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ninjacruft. ComCat 02:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it can be verified that whoosh exists and is notable--nixie 02:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertsement, ninjacruft. Megan1967 03:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a very ambiguous article -- vanity? not notable?... ! Tygar 04:28, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Or merge with something like List of things made by two people in 2005.) Miss Pippa 11:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Deletge. Tygar, is "ambiguous" a euphemism for "nonsense"? Remes 15:00, 9 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "wichita falls"

There's already Wichita Falls, with obviously a ton more content. Should be deleted. RidG (talk) 01:55, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect. I think this would be more appropriate, given that there is a tiny, tiny bit of information in the candidate article. Bratsche ^(talk) 02:08, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that the merge is done, I change my vote to Delete, since it's true that no one is going to search with the quotes. Bratsche ^(talk) 03:03, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge is done now. I say Delete the redirect, it's not useful (lowercase and in quotes). -- Curps 02:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, noone is going to punctuate a search that way--nixie 02:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete;not a useful redirect. Jgm 03:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Jgm. Megan1967 03:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, people do punctuate their searches that way. They think that the search box in Wikipedia works in the way that search boxes at web sites commonly do, including having the widespread syntax for searching for whole phrases. Equally unfortunately, now that content from this article has been merged by Curps into Wichita Falls, it cannot be deleted without violating the requirements of the GFDL to retain full author attribution. (See WP:GVFD#Editing_an_article_nominated_for_deletion.) Redirect. Uncle G 12:53, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Redirect, like G said. Also, redirects are cheap. sjorford →•← 15:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move over Wichita Falls (which has no history) and redirect from there. —Korath (Talk) 00:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent solution! Uncle G 17:23, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a useful redirect punctuated like that. Jonathunder 04:18, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Neutrality^talk 00:04, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:16, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy

A dictionary definition with no real hope for becoming an article. -Rholton 02:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.. Or Wiktionary. Tygar 04:29, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary had had howdy for two months prior to the creation of this article. Delete. Uncle G 12:00, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Keep might be slang, but so is fuck and we have a good article on that. There's at least half a century of history to this term, let it grow. Article is just a stub but already has interesting cultural reference that wouldn't be found in a dictionary (i.e. its association with Texas A&M) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that the Texas A&M reference is a bit of parochial hijacking, to be honest. If the term symbolizes anything, it's far more likely to symbolize John Wayne. Uncle G 01:54, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef and some crap written by a Texas A&M student that is not by any means encyclopedic. This is probably a speedy. -R. fiend 20:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per UncleG. Radiant! 10:29, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If Wiktionary already has a definition of the phrase, I think that's enough. This could probably be expanded into something worthy of Wikipedia, but this article definitely isn't it, and I don't see anybody stepping up to do the necessary legwork on it. As it stands the article's just an Aggie vanity (and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm a Longhorn). Katefan0 15:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing here except a dicdef and vanity trivia. Gazpacho 23:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per UncleG. Kim Bruning 01:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably much more associated in the public mind with Minnie Pearl than with Texas A&M; even so, "hat price tag" doesn't merit an article and neither does "Howdy". Aggiecruft. Rlquall 05:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whoop

A dictionary definition (at best) with no real hope for becoming an article. -Rholton 02:17, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources. Kappa 09:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary wouldn't want something like this. Wiktionary would want something like Wiktionary:whoop (which was written from scratch). Delete. Uncle G 12:07, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• ...there it is. Delete, or add it to an American slang page. — RJH 19:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 03:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flying Stone

• Delete This is in violation of Wikipedia policy on promotion, major stealth ad. Take a look at who originally created the article on May 25,2003. You wonder why this person was protesting the VfD for the Portland Surrealist Group? Also, the very obvious fact is that this, "publication" is extremely non-notable. Also, I cannot find any credible reference source, newspapers, media, art galleries, museums, etc., that even mention this, "publication". Blatant web promotion.Classicjupiter2 02:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 03:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 2 issues in 4 years = likely not an encyclopedic publication Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Google for "Flying Stone" Portland -Wikipedia gets 98 hits, but the majority seem to unrelated to the subject of the article [3]. -- Infrogmation 05:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad or vanity. (User:Radiant!)
• Delete this vanity/ad/surrealistcruft/whatever. Edeans 18:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Deathphoenix 18:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raspadoxpress

This is obviously an advertisement. Guanaco 02:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I speedy-deleted it. No need to take up our time with debate: it's an obvious violation. - DavidWBrooks 03:33, 9 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 (5 votes, no opposition). Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ComputerLand

This was the article entitled "Vanstar", which was on VfD a few weeks ago; I have moved it to this location, but I am not sure that this company needs an article either. If it does, I hope that someone will add an actual explanation. No Vote (I'm not sure this is the right protocol for an article that has been moved.) Ben Standeven 02:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. ComputerLand was very important in the history of the commoditization of the personal computer. I'm surprised the article is so utterly stubful. It was owned by Bill Millard, who had also founded IMSAI, and was the original testbed and source for WordStar (most of the original WordStar staff were ex-IMSAI). Millard essentially sucked IMSAI dry to the benefit of ComputerLand; the ensuing lawsuits resulted in Millard owing some $200 million to the plaintiffs. Then there are the est connections, as well as (get this) Grateful Dead and Courtney Love connections...Anyway, Bill deserves an article, as does ComputerLand, and for that matter IMSAI... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Add that to the article please :) Radiant! 09:20, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • well, I kinda like to avoid editing articles that I have strong and perhaps irrational and not completely informed biases about. I'm still pissed off at Millard for screwing me over 25 years ago... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep sounds notable Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 07:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, jpgordon is correct. Gazpacho 18:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Jpgordon is right. Article is awful in present state but ComputerLand is notable. Millard was an EST devotee and many ComputerLand employees were, too, or good imitations of same. They would do aggressive EST things like saying to each other in a stage whisper, "Oh, looks like a paying customer" when you walked in the door. I believe for a while they answered the phone with the phrase "Good day! Every day is a good day at ComputerLand." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 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. Joyous 03:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Russo

Apparent vanity. -Rholton 03:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn vanity. burnt in effigy 05:10, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Can you say "vanity"? Delete. --Slowking Man 07:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Delete. Edeans 18:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. I've subsequently redirected to Hypnosis as per User:Gtrmp. Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mesmeric

Sub-stub dicdef. Delete JeremyA 03:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But might there be any benefit from mentioning this fact in Pink Floyd? -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 04:10, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Redirect to Franz Mesmer. The word is not specific to Pink Floyd at all and instead refers to things which are in some ways evocative of the philosophy/practices of Mesmer.--Fastfission 06:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• There was no need to bring this to VFD. You could have just been bold and replaced the article with a standard adjective→noun Redirect, as per Fastfission and the Wikipedia:naming conventions (adjectives). Uncle G 12:39, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Redirect agree with Uncle G Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Mesmerism already redirects to hypnosis. Mesmeric should redirect to the same place. -Sean Curtin 03:19, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:11, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of things in Chennai

I had created this article in January when I was expanding the article on Chennai. This article was intended to hold the lists that the Chennai article then had. I now feel this is completely not suitable to clean-up. I would prefer this article to be deleted, unless someone really feels confident of getting it to shape as a companion/support article to Chennai. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 03:40, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant/duplicate page. Megan1967 04:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Sundar 04:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, Mar 9, 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 phrase seems to be a neologism, so the redirect seemed unnecessary. Joyous 03:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hypotenuse highway

As far as I can tell, this term is not used. I am a roadgeek and have never heard the term. Anything worth saying is already at bypass. --SPUI (talk) 03:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Google gives zero hits for "hypotenuse highway". -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 04:16, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• I clicked this hoping to read some interesting things about triangles or mathematics :( ... sigh. Other than that, it has relavent information at bypass. Delete. Tygar 04:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. SamuraiClinton is quickly confirming my suspicion that he's the neologism vandal. Rhobite 20:51, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bypass, I am sorry for creating this article, I never knew a setup of 2 existing words separated by a space would sometimes be considered a neologism to Wikipedia article standards. SamuraiClinton 21:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I redirected the article to Bypass. Tygar 06:34, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd still recommend deleting the redirect, given that the term was made-up. Though I'm not sure that keeping it would hurt. --SPUI (talk) 15:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• My suspicions are akin to Rhobite's, given both Special:Contributions/SamuraiClinton (which includes Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vfd and Template:picneed amongst many others) and Wiktionary:Special:Contributions/SamuraiClinton. Speedy Delete the redirect. Uncle G 11:17, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• I have occasionally heard people use "hypoteneuse" as a slangy synonym for "bypass", but it's not in any sense a standard term that belongs in an encyclopedia. IME, it's largely restricted to mathgeeks who think they're being clever and witty. Redirecting to bypass was a good call. Bearcat 00:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zamil akhtar

Reads like a work of fiction - a google search on the subject produced nothing. JeremyA 04:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, patent nonsense if you ask me. - Mustafaa 07:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, original research/essay. Megan1967 09:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Mustafaa.--Jacobw 10:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'd say BJAODN if it wasn't so long and ponderous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, Mar 9, 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 (6 keep, 2 merge, 1 keep/merge). Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb (song)

Article fails to establish notability. An album track that was never released as a single, thus not a hit nor notable. Those few sentences could possibly be merged with the In Utero article. JamesBurns 04:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. It may be an album track, but it still got a fair amount of airplay despite that. Eh, but I could really go either way. DaveTheRed 07:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge individual songs (unless exceptionally notable, which this one is not). Radiant! 09:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Vfd is not votes for Keeption or mergion. Kappa 09:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. There was a song by The Beautiful South called Dumb that was actually a single. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable song by a notable band, Nirvana. - Longhair | Talk 21:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, is wasn't a single for Nirvana--nixie 22:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rhobite 23:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is potential for expansion, here; the song has numerous veiled references to heroin which could be discussed. (My heart is broke / But I have some glue / Help me inhale / And mend it with you.) Psychonaut 02:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to album - David Gerard 00:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep well-known song. Grue 20:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey guterman

Delete. Non-notable, probably vanity. burnt in effigy 04:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tygar 07:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 04:16, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete, Lower Case Surname Rule. Edeans 18:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glen Nelson

Undistributed albums and unpublished books. Doesn't seem to be notable enough. Of course, with rap music sometimes music circulates widely outside of formal distribution channels, so it's possible he may be notable. -- Curps 05:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The lack of a face in the picture makes one pause. The article is also getting more and more crufty with each edit. Delete. RickK 06:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• How could you delete an Intellectual with a capital I? In this case, yes we can delete. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although, based on the picture, he seems to use the exact same popscreen that I do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because this seems very suspicious (particularly the photo). Written as largely vanity, puffs of unpublished works aren't notable or verifiable. If this album does appear, then he maywarrant an article (after all, rappers aren't exactly shy retiring types to hide their talents, so rampant egotism is probably a benefit in that field), but only once we have something concrete and verifiable. Average Earthman 16:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable, smells hoaxy. Probable vanity even if true. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 22:33, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:33, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore Keep

The article does not establish notability. A recording engineer. Even if he recorded multi-platinum albums, a recording engineer is not notable. RickK 05:17, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, keep the rewrite. RickK 08:07, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Google returns 58 hits for "theodore keep" "liberty records". The article does not establish notability - did he do something cool like Delia Derbyshire? I shall now refrain from making the obvious pun about Theodore Delete. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 05:29, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Well, one of us had to make that joke, and I'm glad you took the bullet for me. Delete. Not all names appearing on some sort of album are notable. -R. fiend 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 09:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ted Keep was not just some engineer, but the one responsible for the The Chipmunks (the name Theoodore is not coincidental). As a co-founder of Liberty Records and multiple Grammy winner, the notability is there. --iMb~Mw 10:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per IMeowbot. --Jacobw 10:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Grammy winner with a Chipmunk named after him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Keep and Expand to include notability as described by IMeowbot. Barno 16:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This guy was not "responsible" for the Chipmunks, but another guy at the record label who the Theodore character was named after. He didn't create the character, or voice him. The very best he deserves is a redirect to Liberty Records, which says more about him than this article does. -R. fiend 19:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:IMeowbot. —RaD Man (talk) 02:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This page [4] says that Theodore Keep (chief engineer) was one of the three creators of Alvin and the Chipmunks which were named for the three creators. They won Grammy awards in the awards' first two years (1959 and 1960 for 1958 and 1959 work), both years for "Best Engineered Record - Non-Classical". The first year's "The Chipmunk Song" also won Grammys for Best Album for Children and Best Comedy Performance. A bit of Googling (including "Grammy" with Ted or Theodore Keep) answered the notability question easily for this one. Barno 03:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, no, it doesn't say that. It says they were created by Ross Bagdasarian, and one of them was named for Theodore Keep. Also, note that the site you linked to is a wikipedia mirror, so you'd be better off just citing the Alvin and the Chipmunks page, which isn't the best source for writing wikipedia articles. This guy was the engineer, which is not exactly a terribly notable profession. Can you name one famous sound engineer? I don't think we even have an article on that profession, specifically. A redirect says alot more than this article does. -R. fiend 04:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you name one famous sound engineer? — For some reason, the name "Paddy Kingsland" immediately springs to mind. Uncle G 17:41, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  • Anyway, with the new rewrite I'm changing my vote to keep, not because he was an executive at Liberty Records, or because Theodore the Chipmunk was named for him, but because he evidently contributed several innovations to sound recording. However, there is a slightly ambiguous statement that is important. The article states that he "provided the synchronization process that allowed Ross Bagdasarian to combine his speed-doubled voice technique...", now did he just provide it, or did he invent it? If he hit the button on the effects component that made the sound, therefore "providing" the effect, that's hardly terribly notable. If he invented the process then that's different. -R. fiend 18:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's vague because there's more looking to do. He did build his own toys, but it's unclear exactly which ones. --iMb~Mw 18:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep' and expand Yuckfoo 02:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten version. JamesMLane 03:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Spinboy 16:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Members of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage

Speculation. Anything which is not speculation and is not already there, should be merged into Same-sex marriage in Canada. RickK 06:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, spectulation, intresting work though. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Canada = notability . Delete. Speculation, and even if it were not, its encyclopedicness is highly suspect. Are we to have an article on Members of the US 136th Congress and tobacco subsidies? -R. fiend 07:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A better analogy would be an article during the Clinton impeachment debate tracking the announced voting intentions of Senators or an article on voting intentions of British MPs on the foxhunting issue (which is BIG news in the UK). Tobacco subsidies are not a national issue dominating debate in the US, the same sex marriage issue is a national issue in Canada (and indeed has attracted significant attention in the US) and is dominating the front page. I think the move to delete this is yet another example of the Americentrism of various US based wikipedians. If it's not to do with the US then it's deletable.AndyL 18:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • • I object to Andy's attempt to paint me as Americacentric on the basis of this nomination. As I indicated, the reason why this should be deleted is because it is speculative, it has nothing to do with the lack of notability of the subject, because I DO NOT believe that the subject is not notable. Note that I didn't say to delete Same-sex marriage in Canada. THIS article, as it stands, is nothing more than opinion, because the votes have not been cast. RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK then, where is this phantom article on the 105th US Congress and the Clinton Impeachment? Is there one? If not, then that analogy sucks too. Looks like this article is another example of Canadian centrism of various Canada based wikipedians, who have also been writing articles on everyone who holds a local public office in the Toronto area (where are the ones for New York City?) among other things. And why isn't this information in the article on same-sex marriage in Canada? -R. fiend 19:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Even though I live in Toronto, I didn't particularly support having articles on individual Toronto city councillors (except ones who are notable for other reasons), but the fact is that the ones that were nominated for deletion legitimately survived the votes. And it wasn't because they were Canadian; it was because there is some support, like it or not, for the notion that city councillors do merit articles. The idea that Canadian-centrism is something that needs to be fought against is utterly absurd; in reality, Canadian subjects on VfD are regularly forced to meet a higher standard of notability than equivalent articles from the United States. If you believe that city councillors don't generally deserve encyclopedia articles, that's one thing (and one I'd actually agree with you on), but let's get the issue straight: nobody's expecting special treatment for Canadian topics; we Canadians expect our topics to be given equal consideration. And there are American cities for whom people have written articles on councillors, even if New York isn't one of them. I don't agree with it, but they do seem to survive VfD often enough. Bearcat 03:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this takes a lot of work to do of which mulitple sources are used. A poll is never accurate, does this mean we should never poll? C'mon be fair guys.
  • Above vote by 209.217.83.14 (talk • contribs) -- Curps 07:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a fair amount of work, I'd really hesitate to just sweep it aside. The Canadian parliamentary vote will happen later this year, and after that the speculation and/or research will be likely be removed and only the record of the vote will remain. Maybe we could afford to bend the rules here if necessary and let this article live on in its present form for a few more months, given that the final version of this page after the vote will be more encyclopedic. -- Curps 07:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously Earl Andrew 07:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Radiant! 09:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations, Article needs cleanup. Megan1967 09:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, could use more work, but an interesting start. It would probably only make sense to keep it if it were regularly updated with more information. Also - pretty tables. :) RidG (talk) 09:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It is very regularly updated, look at the edit history ;) - Jord 13:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Canadian-Parliamentcruft. Is there any kind of cruft that WP hasn't got? Miss Pippa 11:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment. Significant topic, verifiable. Kappa 12:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you verify what somebody might do in the future? RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge. I admit that I too had reservations when I first saw this page but it is a highly topical issue in Canada today. Perhaps, now that the bill has been introduced in the House (and therefore has a name) this should be merged with Bill C-38. - Jord 13:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Stong Keep. This is not speculation: it is based on the public statements of the MPs as to how they will vote, so it is verifable. It should be merged once the vote is taken. Kevintoronto 13:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a very useful page performing a valuable service. Somehow we get a lot of comments on VfD talking about how since WP isn't on paper, we can afford to have this video game character or that stretch of road, but when something comes up that actually untilizes our online, wiki nature, it's VfD'd and derided as cruft. This is a good use of Wikipedia and ought to be encouraged. Remes 15:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is cruft. The subject is valid. THIS article is opinion and prediction. RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's about an interesting and important subject, and obviously very well researched, but, I'm sorry, I just don't think that speculation about how someone might vote belongs in an encyclopledia. Encyclopedias are all about facts, and this is just well-researched guesswork. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out, Andrew, that you voted to "keep" Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Great Jedi Purge, a battle in Star Wars. Star Wars is -- and I hesitate to risk the wrath of geeks everywhere (including my spouse) -- fiction, not fact. This page is an important comment on a major issue in Canada. In a short few months, the vote will have been taken, and this page will be updated to reflect it. Kevintoronto 14:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Apples. Oranges. RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Aye, I don't really see how the two can be compared. There's a big difference between fiction and speculation, and I doubt that even the most hardcore deletionist would say that we need to remove all fiction from Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not suggesting that fiction should be removed from Wikipedia. I am only pointing out that because there is room on Wikipedia for buckets of articles on fictional characters and events that people are interested in, there should also be room for an article about a hugely important and controversial and real issue in Canada that a lot of people are interested in. The issue will soon be resolved and this page will be quickly and easily converted to a record of the vote. As noted, the article focuses on the verifiable, publicly-stated positions of the MPs. Speculation has been discouraged and reverted, as watchers of this page well know. And in response to RickK's stunning logic ("Apples. Oranges."), no, it isn't. Kevintoronto 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation. The problem is not cruftiness, it's verifiability. Wait for the vote to occur, then there's no need to gauge likelihood. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The point is that this article has been prepared using public statements of MPs, so it is verifiable, and not speculation. Where speculation is used, it should be removed, just as with any other article. One or two bits of stray specualtion in an otherwise useful and frequently viewed article should not be grounds for deletion, but rather for editing.
  • And by the way, there are 178 articles in the Category "Star Trek characters". Apparently there is room for them, why is there no room for this article? Kevintoronto 17:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Those articles can be verified. This cannot. RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am afraid that not even MPs have the ability to predict the future. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • And there are 60 articles and 17 subcategories in the Star Wars category. Just one of those seventeen sub-categories, "Star Wars characters" has 38 articles, plus an additional 78 articles in 6 sub-categories. And this is about something that is fictional! Canada, and its debate over same-sex marriage, is real. How can you be so upset about something that you call "speculative", when there is so much room taken up by fiction? Do we need more space for another sci-fi character who was on screen for 8 seconds in a movie made in 1975? Kevintoronto 16:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Fiction is not speculative. Those articles can be verified. This cannot. Note that I do not support the creation of all of those mini-articles, either, but the vote has already been lost there. RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • Yep. You can verify the publicly-stated voting intentions of MPs by reading their statements in the Canadian media or on other website that are documenting those statements, such as www.marriagevote.ca. Or you can call their offices. Kevintoronto 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Will we have these lists for every issue for every incarnation of every legislative body in every country? Will enough people be willing to maintain them? Stances on issues can be included in the articles of individual legislators. Gamaliel 17:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Will we have these lists for every issue?" No, only those that people are interested in writing about, just as there are articles on small towns that people are interested in writing about, but not about every small town in the world. Kevintoronto 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not speculation in that various surveys of MPs have been published in the press and numerous MPs have gone on the record on the issue, that makes this list far less speculative than public opinion polls which we keep track of during election campaigns. This is a big issue in Canada and the issue is topical. May be worth revisiting some time after the vote is taken but keep for now. AndyL 18:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - SoM 20:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. Even if it just a template for the future votes. Right now it may just be speculation, but when the vote passes this article will become an important reference for the future. - Sepper 20:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • And then it will be a valid article. RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then develop the article in user space and move it to the main encyclopedia space after the vote is taken. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are 178 articles on Star Trek characters, we can certainly keep this one. --Spinboy 20:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Apples. Oranges. RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Same-sex marriage in Canada. Martg76 20:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - User:Fred A very interesting article that I refer to often. It is not speculation, because the MPs' likely votes are taken from sources such as their published statements on the subject.
  • Above vote by 137.207.106.51 (talk · contributions) Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 22:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep I update this page often, and the vast majority of them that are speculation are listed as undecided. An MP can always change their mind without us knowing. That's why we have things called projected polls for example.
  • Above vote by 134.117.40.252 (talk · contributions) Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 22:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We have projected polls? On Wikipedia? Where? RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have to note that when Ontario passed a bill within the past couple of weeks to bring provincial laws which made reference to marriage into accordance with the court decisions, there was some controversy specifically around the fact that it wasn't a recorded vote. People do seem to want to know how each individual politician votes on this. I'm not sure I agree that it needs to be a separate page from Same-sex marriage in Canada, but it's not original research or speculation, either. It's quite clearly based as much as possible on actual public record, the relatively few assumptions in the article are perfectly solid ones (I'm gay and Canadian, so trust me, I know what's a reasonable assumption on this topic, and there isn't a single bit of speculation in here that isn't supportable.) For that matter, final reading of the bill is only a few weeks away, so the article will be entirely documented fact in short order. Keep or merge into the main SSM article. Bearcat 04:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is a page I visit lots of times when I am on here, don't delete this. Jack Cox 18:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation until actual vote takes place. kaal 05:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Until the vote occurs this is speculative. The government could even fall before this is voted on. This would be more appropriately tracked on a userpage and then streamlined and merged with Same-sex marriage in Canada. All that aside, wow, that's one heck of a table, and a tonne of work digging up all the data. - NormanEinstein 18:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation on how the members might vote? Not encyclopedic. The topic of same sex marriage in Canada is already well covered in wikipedia. DaveTheRed 21:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have found this article very useful in getting updates on the position of MPs on the vote, and it really helps to have all the MPs positions all on one page. I find it very informative. It also helps to have a table to add up all the current votes of in favour and against. Having each MPs position on their own page would make adding up the totals very difficut and cumbersome. Also, articles on current events are allowed on Wikipedia, which is what this is. Current event articles can often be based on a certain amount of specualation. In fact, I would even argue that even the most encyclopedic articles may have a small amount of speccualtion in them. A little bit of specualtion should not discount and invalidate an entire article that is very informative and useful. Also note that indeed it is not complete specualtion, and is largely based on MPs acutal statements and positions. Brenj 21:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This isn't speculation, it's a repository of verifiable information taken from public statements. If some sections of the page are speculative, the solution is to change them -- not to delete the entire thing. (In fact, I see that someone has recently corrected the page's speculative elements.) CJCurrie 00:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KeepBut, remove unconfirmed reports.Habsfannova 02:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but cleanup. The article, at its heart, is a record of MPs' stances on same-sex marriage and specfically Bill C-38, which has been drafted and does exist, which distinguishes this legislation from a hypothetical bill about tobacco lawsuits. Any information based on published reports of MPs' stances is not speculation. The comments and prognostications based on an MP's constituency, however, are ill-founded and the MPs in question should be listed as unknown in the absence of any verifiable statements. The Senate vote portion of the article is largely empty and should be done away with. Ianking 04:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• A proposal: this issue is taking up way too much time and energy. How about a 90-day moratorium on this question to give everyone a chance to think it over, at the end of which we can have a simple Keep/delete/merge vote? Kevintoronto 15:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good idea. --Spinboy 17:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Very informative article. The page's format is very well done. If you really want to use the word "speculation," then consider it speculation based on reliable sources. The "Crystal Ball" analogy insinuates that the sources are questionable/poor/etc. Sure, MPs can change their votes at the last minute, but is that argument good enough to invalidate all this data? I don't think so. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-12 01:36 Z
• Delete. It's speculation. Completely unencyclopedic...and please don't confuse the issue of same sex marriage with whether or not this is encyclopedic. --Woohookitty 01:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see anyone on this page having such confusion. The topic of the vote in parliament is completely immaterial (or should be) to the question of whether an article like this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Remes 17:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Some "speculation" by reliable sources and some verifiable data. Other speculation should be removed; however, data used for the speculation should be retained. —UTSRelativity 04:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously a lot of work went into this article, and it is very informative/interesting. If the MPs' opinions are verifiable through press articles and other published reports, then it is not speculation. I would say though that the MPs whose stances on the issue are unknown/unverifiable should be listed as "unknown" rather than assuming that they would vote along party lines or the view held by their constituents. Darkcore 10:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm of the view that this will be of negligible historical interest once the whole thing is settled. Lacrimosus 22:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete Reads like a historical investigation of the dubious future. An encyclopedia should include information about the 38th Canadian Parliament and about same sex marriage, and the reader should be left to draw his own conclusions. Halidecyphon 06:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Wikibooks Voter's Guide, which is the perfect home for something like this. Tuf-Kat 22:36, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well there we have it. Glad to know there's a place for things like this. Halidecyphon 06:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Will be be transwiki'ing all election/political related martial then to this Voter's Guide? Where's the line that says what we do or don't transwiki? --Spinboy 16:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Anybody can transwiki anything, as long as the history is intact. What happens to it after transwikiing (both here and at the Voter's Guide) is subject to the ordinary rules of consensus. Tuf-Kat
• Strong delete. Since when is the mere amount of work or craft in creating an article a factor either way on VfD? This is still obvious and speculative politicruft. Nothing against Canada here, as you can just as easily do the same thing for any major upcoming vote in the US Congress, the UK Parliament, the German Bundestag, the Japanese Diet, the Icelandic Althing, etc. Edeans 19:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, and if there's a particularly important vote in the Althing and someone wants to compile a similar page, I say, more power to 'em. The fact that this is an exercise that could be repeated in no way suggests that it shouldn't be allowed now or in the future. Remes 17:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This is pure speculation. It would make for a good newspaper article, but an encyclopedia is about facts, i.e. past events. UnHoly 21:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Maybe I am biased as a Canadian, but I think this article is quite useful. I am following this issue very closely. TheArmadillo 02:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I find this artical to be both encyclopedic, and verifiable, as it is a compilation based on comments regarding their stances made by the MPs themselves. Cdernings 20:20, 18 Mar 2005
• Keep - a good and useful article. - SimonP 18:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Useful & valuable now; even more so in the future ("But how did Parliament, the parties and MP's feel about it?") RsrchBoy 23:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Interesting compilation of public statements by MP's -- Webgeer 06:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - While a few contributors have been loose with including verifiable information (ie, so-and-so is from a rural district so they will likely vote yyy) the vast majority has been compiled legitimately from a pan-Canadian selection of information that would be impossible to do anywhere on the net except for Wikipedia. There could be more sourcing, yes, but this vote will be the biggest news story of the year here in Canada. Let's not deride it as cruft. Sidenote: Everyone saying merge into Bill C-38 or Same-sex marriage in Canada... well, these tables would be there, but that would put both pages way over the size limit. Think of this as a spinoff article on account of size limitations alone. -The Tom 17:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - based on publically stated intentions of politicians; Also, as The Tom said, it would make any article it was merged with too long IMO. Dunro 10:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was in there reverting vandalism and noticed that this article is already really big, beyond the recommended article size. Not that it should be made shorter, but it certainly shouldn't be merged. --Spinboy 16:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This page is very similar to the "future election campaign" pages that this website currently has. It might seem like speculation but it is still reporting facts and not opinions. Speculation would involve having a lot of opinions, but this article only has facts. Wiki Contributor 19:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kus

This appears to be a foreign Arabic dictionary definition. Either delete, or transwiki to the Arabic wikipedia, or transwiki to wiktionary. Sjakkalle 07:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) Just to make it clear, my primary vote on this one is delete since the English Wiktionary should in general be reserved for English words, and foreign words should have a very good reason for being there, as for example "quid pro quo". Transwiki to the Arabic version would require a translation to Arabic. Sjakkalle 11:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. — JIP | Talk 07:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not even up to wiktionary standards. - Mustafaa 07:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 09:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no transwiki. Tygar 10:19, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• No! Wiktionary's mandate is clear, and is right at the bottom of Wiktionary:Main Page. It is to include all words of all languages. The English Wiktionary will happily accept Arabic words, as long as the definitions are written in English. Being the English Wiktionary means that the articles are written in English and not that only the English language is covered. The other requirement is that the article title be the word written in the actual script of the language concerned. So the Wiktionary entry for this word would not be a romanization, as this article's title is. Figuring out the correct title is too much of a burden on the already overtaxed Transwiki system, which is not necessary dealt with by people fluent in transliteration. Delete and let Jelfar99, who obviously is fluent, write a dictionary definition in Wiktionary xemself, both for this word and for Zag. Homaid is somewhat suspect, too. Uncle G 13:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Alright, sorry, guess I should have read the Wiktionary policy better. Still I do not think that this particular word needs to be there, and yes I agree that moving this to Wiktionary would be a burden on the interwiki system. So I agree with you on just about everything and maintain my delete vote. Sjakkalle 13:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No transwiki. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, while the content is somewhat accurate, this is a foreign dicdef, not an article. Wyss 01:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ziotaki language

Delete. Nonnotable conlang --Angr 09:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. RidG (talk) 10:08, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• A fictional language with 60,000,000,000 fictional speakers on a fictional planet, apparently. It's unclear what the fictional universe that this language is a part of actually is. Since it's difficult to say any more about this subject than "X is a fictional language made up by Y as a hobby", this is an article with zero potentional to expand to a full article. Delete. Uncle G 13:03, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete, not enough fictional speakers for notability. Kappa 16:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity ad, platform for a link, almost a speedy. Wyss 01:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable conlang. Lacrimosus 00:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A fictional language in a fictional world with many fictional speakers, but no evidence that enough real people care for it to be notable. Jonathunder 21:30, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
• Delete, not (yet) used by anyone. Article is only a couple of lines, and can be recreated if Ziotaki ever manages conquer the world at some later date. Kim Bruning 00:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete all three articles. Joyous 03:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tattoology, tattoologist, and Joshua Andrews

Tattoology was coined in the year 2000 by Tattoologist Joshua Andrews, to aid the development of this newly emerging, multi-disciplinary inquiry into every facet of the world of tattooing. Neoligism -and- vanity -and- original research--nixie 11:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If the first two neologisms showed evidence of significant use I'd say redirect them to tattoo, but as a google for "Joshua Andrews" Tattoology gets just 21 hits, I suspect we're safe in deleting the lot. -- Infrogmation 15:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — agreed, at least until drawology, paintology and sculptology come into widespread use. :) — RJH 19:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Welcome to the newly emerging, multi-disciplinary inquiry of Deleteology. --[[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412] 23:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. Vanity neologisms, ads. Wyss 00:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It will take more than an umlaut symbol to save this neologism. Delete all three. Fire Star 00:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with RJH, assuming, of course, this whole thing wasn't a hoax. In that event, delete with extreme prejudice. Edeans 20:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:04, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Lacy

He was inserted into the list of famous Danes, but I have never heard of him, and I don't get any google hits for "Robert Lacy" "portraiture prize" and only one bad hit for "Robert Lacy" "Fish in a Barrel". Should be deleted as non-notable. (I am acting on points raised by User:Tarvin on talk:Denmark) Thue | talk 11:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My vote: Delete. TroelsArvin 11:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If this portraiture prize was so notable, he could have named it. Since he hasn't, we can't verify it. I can't find any reference to the book, either - Amazon has a number of books written by more than one Robert Lacy, but none were mentioned in this article, so quite possibly this individual is well down on the list of people called Robert Lacy who have written books. Average Earthman 16:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 00:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. DaveTheRed 04:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I smell something rotten in the state of Denmark. Delete. Edeans 20:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:03, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] R.E. Lee Deville

The article freely admits that Mr. Deville is "of little merit". THat does not sound particularily notable. I suggest that this article be deleted. Sjakkalle 15:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, or perhaps just nonsense. Remes 16:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have just rewritten this article as a stub about the real R.E. Lee DeVille. I have absolutely no knowledge of mathematics, so I can't say whether he's notable, although I doubt it, since essentially he's a postdoc at NYU. Someone who knows more about math could look at it and comment here about whether he's worth keeping in. Also, my stub is really inadequate, because I can't really understand his CV or his research interest statement. Again, someone who knows more about math could do much better than I did. Anyway, I'm going to withhold a vote at all now, because while this is no longer the attack or nonsense that it was before, I'm still not sure whether he's sufficiently notable or not. Remes 22:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This sounds like nonsense to me. Insufficient information to even contemplate verifying.Average Earthman 16:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete He's real, a research mathematician at NYU... but this article smells more like an attack page than an attempt to start a bio stub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an attack, may not merit a page anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be speedied as a personal attack/vandalism, else a rant. Wyss 00:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was on the verge of nominating this for a speedy deletion, but I was a bit unsure. I was sure that this article merited a deletion or massive cleanup. Sjakkalle 07:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Still delete but weakened, Remes has made a valiant attempt at saving this page, and the page is no longer an attack (or perhaps a self-deprecating vanity?). I do not think that Deville passes the average college professor bar (I believe that has been the standard on whether to keep or delete such articles) for notability however, being an associate research scientist would suggest that he does not. Nonetheless, Remes should be thanked for his attempt. Sjakkalle 07:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Timeline of Human Atrocities is being discussed separately. Joyous 02:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Human Atrocities

Inherently POV, non-encyclopedic, pointless. Created as a POV fork when the user couldn't push his POV entries into List of terrorist incidents. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Note 1. This article was also duplicated at Timeline of Human Atrocities, which has recently been listed for Speedy Deletion, and if that article is not Speedy deleted, it should be included under this VfD.

Thank you for countering your own POV bias by bringing in this article since it clearly shows that the first entry was about "Roman" and not "Israeli" subject. See [[8]]. This shows that your allegations are wrong, it is just that you are paranoid. As for the entry about Goldstein, this is a known fact and the Wiki article itself refers to him as "Jewish-American", "Zionist", and "Kahanist". I fail to see how these are a POV since he is all of these.A.Khalil 13:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Note 2. Since the article was listed for deletion, the creator has been entering in other items in an attempt to disguise his POV intent. Nevertheless, the whole concept is still POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 4 Jan 2003 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Jayjg. -Hapsiainen 16:55, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Pretty much already covered by List of massacres. — RJH 17:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 18:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this atrocity of an article. DaveTheRed 20:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fork, misleading since a good chunk of human history is one long atrocity etc. Wyss 00:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rabidly POV. Binadot 04:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV-forkeritis. JFW | T@lk 11:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 00:46, 13 Mar

2005 (UTC)

• Delete - The article was created to store edits which Jayjg kept vandalizing. Since then, however, I've extracted my edits and saved them elsewhere. Thank you for your 'consideration' and the 'honesty' of your stance.A.Khalil 13:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 02:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Pacific typhoon season

I tried, but without a single authority to get watches from, too large an area, and it being in the past (thus limiting access to advisories; they exist, but are not easily readable) I figure we should kill this now. I might try again in 2005 or 2006, but this article has no present reason to exist. --Golbez 16:47, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Incomplete to the point of being misleading, and I don't want to hear anything about "other people will expand it". They've had fiveish months already and have barely touched it. A well-intentioned effort, Golbez, but I've got to agree that it just didn't work. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too crufty for me. Wyss 00:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well how about that. "1. Poorly built, possibly over-complex. The canonical example is “This is standard old crufty DEC software”. In fact, one fanciful theory of the origin of crufty holds that was originally a mutation of ‘crusty’ applied to DEC software so old that the ‘s’ characters were tall and skinny, looking more like ‘f’ characters." [9] And here I thought you were makin' words up. ;) --Golbez 02:08, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do think it's somehow related to crust... sometimes I picture random, obscuring crystalline growth, or dust under a bed. Wyss 02:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:31, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VGundam

Starcraft player vanity. Non-encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 17:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete any and all video-game player vanity. And besides, this is just silly: read the last two sentences especially: "saving the country of Ethiopia by making the world's largest bowl of chili ever". If anyone needs any more reason to delete this, Google for VGundam +Starcraft brings just 23 displayed hits, almost all forum posts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've also taken the liberty of merge/redirecting Vgundam to here - it was partly a duplicate, with a few more paragraphs that I copied to VGundam. So if/when this page goes away, the redirect should too, of course. CDC (talk) 20:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yawn. Wyss 00:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, player vanity, starcraftcruft. Megan1967 06:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mrwojo 14:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compress error; pending deletion. Joyous 02:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Freels

• Delete Extremely Non-Notable The article was created by an Anon, 141.219.44.182, a member of the Portland Surrealist Group and friend of Brandon Freels as a means for web-promotion. The article is also a means of advertising this unknown, "author" of two chapbooks! The kind that sell for under $5.00. There is around 900 plus google hits for this Brandon Freels, who shares the same name as a Gamer, who is probably the one getting the share of google hits. Another Surrealismcruft Stealth Ad and Vanity Page written for a friend! Plus, I cannot find any credible and legitimate reference source from any notable sources, such as literary critics and literary reviews (no backslapping praises from bogus independent unknowns, either please!) that can tell us anything solid. A marginal and certainly to be considered as spam. Notice that this is also a member of the Portland Surrealist Group, where an anon yesterday went and removed the VfD tag from that article, (check that pages history).Classicjupiter2 17:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again you make assertions (141.219.44.182 is a member of the Portland Surrealist Group) without providing any basis for them, and thus these statements are entitled to be given the weight they deserve, which is to be utterly ignored. I would say that we should ignore everything here until you provide some support. Furthermore, putting "author" in quotes shows you don't know what quotation marks are for. He's the author of them, no matter how worthless they are. And why do you care how much books sell for? Keep until you bring up some actual, marginally-supported argument. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Noted. Dan, you just stated, "He's the author of them, no matter how worthless they are." You did just state that fact, and after looking at the obvious, with your own admission above, "worthless", all the more reason to delete! Are we going to give articles to everyone that all of a sudden is a self-described author? Dan, I want to work with you on this, but after what you just stated above, well, it is kind of downhill from there, you know.Classicjupiter2 18:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any person with a brain would be able to correctly interpret this statement. It's not saying they are worthless, not saying they are valuable, not making any kind of statement on their quality. And what on earth do you mean by "self-described author"? "Author" isn't some kind of honorific; it just means that someone has written something, of whatever quality from horrible to wonderful. Your seemingly deliberate misinterpretation of my statement shows that the last thing you are interested in doing is working with me. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh brother! Take a look at who just removed (AGAIN) the VfD Notice tag from the Wikipedia article on the Portland Surrealist Group!!! Look at the history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portland_Surrealist_Group&action=history

note that this is the second time that an ANON removed the VfD notice tag from that article. Classicjupiter2 18:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment (no vote from me on this one): I find 375 hits for "Brandon Freels" without the word "Wikipedia". I note that poems by Brandon Freels have been published in Exquisite Corpse, a literary magazine of some note. I'll leave it to other Wikipedians to decide if this constitutes adiquate notability. I urge our Surrealist (or "Surrealism influenced") friends not to remove vfd notices from articles if those were placed according to proper Wikipedia VFD procedures. Continued removals of such will be considered vandalism and dealt with accordingly. -- Infrogmation 18:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S.: If it is decided to delete this article, Image:BrandonFreels.jpg should be deleted at the same time. -- Infrogmation 21:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • noted, Infrogmation, about the Exquisite Corpse regarding publishing poems by Brandon Freels. Let it also be noted that this publication also accepts Submissions from New Writers, as indicated here, http://www.corpse.org/submit/index.html
  • As does practically every other magazine known to man. What's your point? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Granted, Infrogmation, anyone here on Wikipedia can write up something, make up a resume of website submitted poetry, state they are a writer and then submit to Exquisite Corpse, but are they notable? Infrogmation, you too can submit to Exquisite Corpse, as can I. The facts presented to the Wikipedia Community are clear, Brandon Freels is a new writer, a self-identified (or self-labeled), "surrealist" and he wrote two chapbooks that sell for under $5 dollars. His chapbooks did get picked as, "Powell's staff picks", Powells is big bookseller store (kind of like a Barnes and Nobles) in Portland, Oregon., and wouldn't you know it, (talk about convenience!) Brandon Freels is from Portland, Oregon! I wonder if he works at Powells bookstore where his chapbooks are labeled as, "Powells staff picks". Hey Dan, do you have the dirt on this?Classicjupiter2 19:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal criticism, speculation, asking other users questions not of strict relevence, and similar rambles on VFD voting pages. -- Infrogmation 19:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I think. Your vendetta tone makes it hard to tease out the issues, ClassicJupiter2--it doesn't really do your argument any favors. In general, authors published in non-vanity presses are notable (or at least, that seems to be the precedent. I'm not sure it's true). However, this seems to be highly local. Is there any evidence these books are sold and read outside the Portland area? Just as a band with only local appeal is not notable, I think I have to come down on that side here. But I'd change my vote if it were demonstrated otherwise. Demi 19:58, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Demi. However, there's quite obviously some sort of feud going on here, and VfD really isn't the place for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity ad, part of a wider spam attempt. Wyss 00:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 01:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. What's up with all these surrealist nominations? Megan1967 06:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do people keep describing it as vanity when there's never even been a suggestion that Freels is the author of all or a significant part of this article? He may be non-notable, that's debatable, but I think we should discount all the "vanity" claims. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I said it's vanity because that's what I think it is. Wyss 15:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On what basis? There is a general problem in Wikipedia, which one would expect to have some sort of objectivity, in which unsupported feelings that certain articles are "vanity" are the basis for possible deletion. In my opinion we should confine ourselves to the non-notability argument unless and until we have some basis for thinking this is vanity. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether an article is true vanity or merely non-notable barely matters, and to some degree the two are almost interchangable when talking about extremely obscure subjects. If a Kindergardener was going to write an article about how he's the all-time hopscotch champ at recess, would it really matter if he wrote the article himself or got his brother or best friend to do it? Either way, it would still be, in a sense, vanity. If an article is about a hoplessly obscure subject, the term "vanity" can be used, even without a signed confession from the article writer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

What you're really promoting is a dilution of the integrity of Wikipedia. Absent any reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the subject of an article, or, more loosely, a friend, relative or associate wrote it, we shouldn't call it vanity, whether it "barely matters" or not. Your saying that an article about a hopelessly obscure subject can be called "vanity" is an endorsement of playing fast and loose, even an endorsement of dishonesty by recklessness. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, fast and loose is how the game gets played here. This is VfD, not Dragnet... nobody here has time to do hours of research and detective work such as tracing IPs and the like to "prove" vanity. If it looks like vanity, smells like vanity, and the subject is thouroughly not-notable, chances are that, yep, it's vanity, no signed confession required. If we're wrong once in ten thousand times, so be it... it doesn't damage the integrity of WP any more than the supposed vanity article would have if kept. It's true that "vanity" can sometimes mean "the article subject has admitted that they themselves wrote the article", but far more often it's actually shorthand for "the article subject is so hopelessly obscure that I believe that only the subject themselves (or possibly family or friends) could have written it". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Ad. Likely vanity. Amazon sales rank of Freels Comes Alive, #1,580,100; of Who the Hell is Brandon Freels, #1,679,819. Amazon sales rank of one self-published book which is known to have sold less than fifty copies total, #1,204,605. My personal guideline is that a sales rank under 250,000 is non-notable. Sales rank numbers over a million are characteristic self-published or vanity press or highly specialized academic titles. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 04:13, 2005 Mar 11 (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 all three articles. Joyous 02:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Living Bill of Rights and Living U.S. Constitution and Living Declaration of Independence

Source of US constitution, which is already in Wikisource. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete don't see why this couldn't be speedied, even if it isn't strictly within guidelines. Smoddy (t) (e) 18:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It's Alive! It's Alive! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

The intent of putting the Living Bill of Rights, the Living U.S. Constitution, and the Living Declaration of Independence up is to create pages where the open editing process of wiki can be applied to these documents in a way that is both original to the Wikipedia and allows the original documents to maintain their integrity on the Wikipedia. I see this as a perfect forum for a uniquely democratic form for discussing government, and would like to see the entry evolve.

I would be interested discussing whether or not this is acceptable for Wikipedia. If this is not the correct forum for that discussion please let me know here.

Many thanks. --Becket Bowes 19:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's an admirable aim, but it's got nothing to do with encyclopedias. Let's continue this discussion at your talk page. DJ Clayworth 19:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with DJ Clayworth. Demi 20:05, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Kill it. Delete. The plan is interesting, though. RidG (talk) 20:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic pet project. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above, WP's not the place for this sort of experiment. Wyss 00:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since it's already in Wikisource. --Deathphoenix 01:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Intriguing, but non-encyclopedic. Binadot 04:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Intriguing, but its covered at Wikisource. Delete. Tygar 06:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't mean to seem unfriendly toward an interesting and well-intentioned effort, but it is clearly inappropriate. Technically it might not be appropriate even for a personal user page unless you can show relevance to a Wikipedia-related purpose, but on the other hand users can do what they like on their user pages within very broad limits, so I'd say Becket Bowes can go for it there if he wants to. Here are some policies I think apply: Dpbsmith (talk) 16:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "it is a participatory document that is meant to be both read and rewritten" means it is a personal essay, even if it is a group personal essay, and original research.
  • Wikipedia is not a discussion forum
  • Wikipedia is not a free Wiki host. As it says there, "If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many sites (such as Wikicities, SeedWiki or Riters.com) that provide wiki hosting (free or for money)." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:35, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George A. Sheridan

This sub-stub reads, "George Augustus Sheridan Captain, United States Army Member of Congress", end of article. Are the contribution of these sort of ultra sub-stubs a benefit or hindrance to the Wikipedia project? Should they be deleted, merged somewhere, or kept to allow for organic growth? --GRider\^talk 18:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep most people would agree that US congressmen are notable. Sheridan was a Louisiana representative, and an interesting one at that, there was a scandal regarding a contested House seat between him and P. B. S. Pinchback, who was the first black state governer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and expand would be best, but if noone cares to do so, Delete the current poor substub. The comment above mine is more informative about the subject than the current article is. -- Infrogmation 19:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As it has since been turned into a decent article, I change my vote to Keep. Good work, Meelar! -- Infrogmation 20:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if not expanded into an actual article before VfD is up. -20:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. Comment above left unsigned by User:R. fiend at the posted date. --GRider\^talk 20:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's weird, why did that happen? Anyway, keep the rewrite. -R. fiend 21:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• comment I think we can cut and paste the US congress article on Sheridan since it is a .gov site and should be public domain. Can anyone else confirm that? Mozzerati 20:17, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • It's a moot point after Meelar's rewrite, but I believe so. They have a copyright page http://bioguide.congress.gov/copyright.htm but that only talks about images. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I've rewritten and expanded the entire article, based on the Congressional bio and some random misc. knowledge. The new version should, I hope, be acceptable to all. Meelar (talk) 20:34, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a substub would have been no reason for deletion, any now we've got a useful article anyway. Martg76 20:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in agreeance with User:Martg76. Invalid nomination; delist from vfd. —RaD Man (talk) 02:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough. Bluemoose 18:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:49 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. Joyous 02:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banjo-Threeie

Sorry, but it made no sense to me. - Mailer Diablo 20:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not an actual game, just a one-time joke in Banjo-Tooie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:54, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neutrinocruft. Wyss 00:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable term, briefly mentioned in a game. --Deathphoenix 01:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Outrageously trivial. Binadot 04:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 06:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:24, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cikatricis Pavol

Vanity. Inter\^Echo 20:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• strong delete - WHY would you write about that on here? Jdcooper 21:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just... odd. --BD2412 23:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be vanity. GRider\^talk 23:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, could be speedied as a user test. Wyss 00:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Remarkable delete. Vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 01:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boethusians

copy-and-pasted from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1232&letter=B

• If it is a copyright problem, list it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here. -- Infrogmation 21:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• First of all, it's not copied and pasted. It has been edited by me. Second of all, it is not a copyright problem. The Jewishencyclopedia.com is public domain. Remove this page from this list ASAP and please pay attention to public domain/copyright distinction (and Wikipedia policies) in the future). --Briangotts 02:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "You may search, retrieve, display, download, and print content from the Service solely for your personal, internal use, and shall make no other use of the content without the express written permission of JE.com and the copyright owner (or its authorized agent) of such content. You will not modify, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the content, in whole or in part, found on the Service.", [10]. Megan1967 06:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The text (which has been modified) comes from a work whose copyright expired something on the order of 20 or 30 years ago (1905 Jewish Encyclopedia). The operators of Jewishencyclopedia.com may post a notice to whatever effect they wish, but that does not give the notice legal effect. The text is public domain and may be reused and/or modified. --Briangotts 15:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a copyright problem, since the copyright on the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia expired long ago. Many articles on Wikipedia are based in whole or part on articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia. We even have a template for it, {{JewishEncyclopedia}}. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Inappropriate Vfd recommendation from inexperienced user. --Dzimmer6 21:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic topic, PD source. Antandrus 05:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic of historical interest. No copyright issues. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:11, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelipedia

We don't need articles on Wikipedia mirrors. Some Google hits, but they are all SEO keyword spam pages. Rhobite 20:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad. Wyss 00:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. If Wikipedia had an article about a Wikipedia mirror, which features and article about... never mind. I'll go pop a Tylenol. --Deathphoenix 01:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. Binadot 04:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is valuable information since Intelipedia is an emulator for Wikipedia. Vote stricken, as it's unsigned. --Milkmandan 15:10, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC) Votes are not stricken just because they're unsigned. A more appropriate thing to do is simply to append the information about who the vote comes from -- in this case, SamuraiClinton (talk • contribs). -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I'll remember that in the future. --Milkmandan 16:01, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

• Delete - ad, and any idiot can set up a Wikipedia mirror. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Powell

Delete. By the admission of the article, not notable. (Complete text of article: Tony Powell, was born in Dallas, Texas. June 11th 1963. He is presently living in Canyon lake, Texas as a starving musician, a frustrated poet and a great unknown. He also is a very talented audio engineer and likes to reacon himself a producer.)-- Antaeus Feldspar 21:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, delete and allow for organic decay. --GRider\^talk 21:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 21:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 23:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 01:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It was the unknown bit that sold me. Average Earthman 09:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Lappin

With 48 googles, how should this be classified? Discuss amongst yourselves. --GRider\^talk 22:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, publicity, ad, article shows no evidence of encyclopedic potential, maybe someone from Oz can show otherwise...? Wyss 23:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, promo. Megan1967 07:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:49 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. The article is cursed with a block compress error, and will be deleted Real Soon Now. Joyous 02:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Necrocracy

Dictdef as it stands, possible neologism? Google returns 215 hits, some of which are nonsensical (i.e. one from a Final Fantasy forum: "In this way, the people of Spira would be able to build a new world without the dogmatic necrocracy of the Maesters of Yevon."; one from a Spelljammer forum: "Most of the inner portion of the torus is occupied by the Necrocracy of Kluembri, a realm of death and decay that is ruled by a council of necromancers.") Katefan0 22:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete simple term made by combing a prefix and suffix. I can do that too: Arachnocracy (n) rule by spiders. Not encyclopedic, and not widespread enough for wikitionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I would say delete. I'm sure there are plenty of pretty cool necrocracies in various Dungeons and Dragons realms, ruled by a 14th level lich and his bodyguard of vampires, but this is unencyclopedic, even if not a neologism. -R. fiend 23:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef at most. Wyss 23:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand dicdefs of real fictional things. Final Fantasy X is set in one. Kappa 00:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Random prefix/suffix names always make me remember the long-excised list of unpopulated professions. -Sean Curtin 03:48, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. If necrocracy is so intrinsically linked to FFX, then how they get so few google hits? DaveTheRed 04:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • FFX is just one example of a fictional necrocracy... one notable example is enough to make it a real concept. Kappa 11:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Neologism dicdef. I take some objection to the assertion, however, that necrocracy is limited only to FFX; it seems like the most accurate description I've ever seen for electoral processes in Chicago. Teslacoil 06:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary or delete. Megan1967 07:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Deathphoenix 00:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wind-Up Records

Delete: No substantial information

Someone should write a real article about Wind-Up Records warpozio 22:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• WTF? Speedy delete to clear this mess from the edit history, keep it off of BJAODN and cut Warpozio loose to write a real article. - Lucky 6.9 22:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• i second the "wtf", and the Speedy delete. Jdcooper 23:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Eh? Speedy. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 23:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Is this some kind of wind-up, mate? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily as a personal communication, else as a rant. If someone cares enough to write a WP-friendly article, let them. Wyss 23:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as personal communication. RickK 00:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I had to double check because this was marked as speedied and archived, but the title was a bluelink; so I'm editing this to note that the title was recreated with a valid article, as per Warpozio's suggestion above. As currently written, it is not what was proposed for deletion, so this debate does not need to be reopened. Bearcat 03:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Deathphoenix 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Universism

It's back (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism). This probably falls under speedy as recreation of deleted material, but since there was such a big debate over it last time, I think it deserves a new vote. Correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, the creator and sole editor of the page, User:Allanrevich, made his first edit today, and so is a potential sockpuppet. Note: I'm not voting either way at this time, just nominating. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 23:04, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, god, Speedy delete as a re-creation this sock-puppet magnet. --Calton | Talk 23:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Delete as re-created material. Last VfD was sock-puppet hell, and was only a couple months ago! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it now. I hear the footsteps of the sockpuppet army on the march. They will be here ere sundown. -R. fiend 23:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of VfD'd article (with, may I add, absolutely no correction of the factors that got it deleted last time.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. RickK 00:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Reconsider? Have now (finally) managed to find the original vfd pages and read some of the ongoing discussions regarding problems with sock puppets etc. First, I am not a sock puppet. Second, I do not have any ties to the movement or its creator. Third, the Wikipedia guidelines suggest strongly that when clear consensus can not be reached, admins should always err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. Fourth, as the movement has several thousand members, most of whom are probably more intersted in Universism than in the Wikipedia, it is fair to assume that many votes from unregistered users are legitimate. I have no stake in the outcome of this discussion, but worry that administrative egos may be blinding some admins to common sense. allan

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropic principle team review

Philosophical/scientific essay. Not encyclopedic. Eric119 23:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Rhobite 00:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be another attempt to host a Wiki on Wikipedia. Andrewa 01:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original essay. What's with the word count notice at the end? --Deathphoenix 01:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The authors are working on a physics degree; the word count is presumably because there is a length requirement. Eric119 04:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, I could say much more but why waste the bandwidth? Wyss 02:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Orig. research. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of products/services with alternate symbols for letters

Not encyclopedic. Rhobite 23:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Why. - Longhair | Talk 01:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• D31373^H^H^H^H^H^H Delete. Words fail me at how unencyclopedic this is. --Deathphoenix 01:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And pre-delete the coming List of businesses whose names contain diphthongs, List of products that use a K for a C, or vice versa, and List of companies whose names use punctuation, or whatever else might appear along such lines. -R. fiend 01:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a bad implementation of a good idea (redirects and disambigs, and there are already some in place for these). --iMb~Mw 02:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• D€l€t€. Mind-bogglingly unencyclopedic. DaveTheRed 05:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.. That title really intrigued me. I doubt one would type it into the search box, and second, it was extremely short and I didn't quite get the point of what it was trying to convey... Tygar 06:45, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If anyone ever sets up a wiki for a collection of pointless trivia and obscure facts, then they may want this, but they can do that with their own servers. Average Earthman 10:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, eek. Wyss 01:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. And before someone else brings it up, I know we have List of songs with brackets in their titles and I know it's just as bad and it shouldn't affect our decision on this one. What was the old Boston Chicken logo, by the way—didn't that have ASCII art in it? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh my god, how did that ever survive the VfD process? DaveTheRed 20:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It didn't just slip by; it had quite a thorough discussion, preserved at Talk:List of songs with brackets in their titles. there were the usual überinclusionists and some real votes from people who genuinely enjoy quirky lists. And there's always sympathy (from me too!) for anything that's a) the product of systematic, thorough hard work and b) can't be easily found elsewhere. I think there may be a de facto consensus that lists of songs get a special dispensation; look at Category:Lists_of_songs. But I'd really like to limit it to songs! Dpbsmith (talk) 14:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic because it's trivial trivia. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absurdly, pathetically, mind-fuckingly trivial. Binadot 05:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• D31373. The connection is so trivial it physically hurts. Chris 16:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as being below the point of even subtrivia. If this stays, my next article might very well be Lucky 6.9's Cordless Drill. - Lucky 6.9 07:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pizza Cafe

Two restaurants which used to operate in Detroit. Rhobite 00:24, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fail to see what sets this apart from 100,000 other pizza places, beyond the C that looks like a (. -R. fiend 01:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. DaveTheRed 05:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 07:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I disagree with the last 3 people on the list. I ate at Pizza (afe when I was a very little kid, and I thought it had notable signaficance. I thought the pizza was like no other restaurant until I discovered California Pizza Kitchen. --GoofyGuy 19:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, delightful. Wyss 01:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and likely original research. RadicalSubversiv E 03:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• |)elete. — JIP | Talk 09:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• See Special:Contributions/SamuraiClinton, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hypotenuse highway, and WP:TFD#Template:Picneed. Given those, I'd like to see independent corroboration of all original articles from this author. No such corroboration is evident here. Speedy delete both this and California Pizza Kitchen as parts of a pattern of disruption, with no prejudice against the subjects of the articles should they be independently verified. Uncle G 11:27, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Wyss 16:56, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kylantha

This fictional character garners no more than 31 googles. How many googles must a fictional character achieve to merit a redirect? How is such a determination made? --GRider\^talk 23:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Though I added much to the Naboo page (though didnt have an acct then) on the history and geography of the planet, and have participated in the game and "seen" this character, there is nothing here that is not already on the main Naboo site. Unless Kylantha is further explored in more expanded source material, I would vote for removing her -- Drachenfyre
• Delete not notable -- Cleduc 04:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CDC (talk) 17:44, 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.