Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 December 26 1.1 Harry Potter crew 1.2 Sony DCR-PC330 1.3 The Sidney Comic 1.4 Herman H. Neuberger 1.5 Diego Caleiro 1.6 Frances the Mute 1.7 MP5KA4 1.8 Liger 1.9 Tigon 1.10 The good of war 1.11 Subtractive color space 1.12 Saroj khanal 1.13 Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin 1.14 Carol Heather Goldsmith 1.15 AT-RT 1.16 Fundamentals of Piano Practice 1.17 Utapau 1.18 Rebel Troop Carrier 1.19 Gun Wagon 1.20 Kuopion Lyseon lukio 1.21 Zip.ca 1.22 BCoD 04 1.23 Network army 1.24 EForge 1.25 Shadow (song) 1.26 Pieces of Me 1.27 The Chair of Indefinite Studies 1.28 Socialator 1.29 Jens Alfke 1.30 List of holidays in 2004 1.31 Multiplication factor 1.32 Kym Valentine 1.33 Nathan braun 1.34 Stonecutters Guild 1.35 Özkan Mut

[edit] December 26

[edit] Harry Potter crew

[[Harry Potter crew] was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

What can be said about this? Most likely duplicate informationb and there are much better ways of displaying this. hfool 00:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Anyone who needs this information would find it better on IMDB. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Harry Potter - oh and just duplicating IMDB is not grounds for deletion. Phlogistomania 00:43, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Just duplicating IMDB is a waste of Wikipedia resources, which IMHO fairly nullifies any arguments for keeping. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Harry Potter. Gamaliel 00:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, most of the information in this article is already included in the relevent movie articles. If anyone is really bothered, they can add the film editing information to those pages if they want, as that appears to be missing (I can't imagine why). Rje 01:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete trivia. imdb does this much more comprehensively than Wikipedia ever will. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Not our brief, and duplicate. Not a merge candidate, really, since the unique information isn't really, and this is my own judgment, needed. Geogre 15:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, WP != IMDB. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. —tregoweth 16:26, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Except for NPOV-offending comment about the crew's talent, the article offers no interesting info. We don't have a crew listing articles for other movies either. --Phils 18:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 02:04, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Mikkalai 03:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete The Harry Potter page should link to IMDB Gkhan 02:27, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not important. --Quoxplor 11:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Material covered elsewhere, needs no redirect. Neutrality^talk 22:40, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Sony DCR-PC330

Sony DCR-PC330 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Reason: Not encyclopedic - "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base"

As fancy is this camera is, I can't see a reason for it to have its own page, or what information here is worth moving to another page.

--Dtcdthingy 00:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Rather ad-like, no notable information, and I suspect it may be a joke, given the wikilink on "page twenty." Shimeru 09:54, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As advertising, wikipedia is not a catalogue. Unless this camera is truly revolutionary then it's gotta go. Rje 15:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a product guide. Geogre 16:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia isn't a product guide or an advertising site. It's more useful than fancruft, but that doesn't save it. Average Earthman 17:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cameracruft. Edeans 07:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge - --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 18:26, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreeing with others, it is very much an advertisement and not much of any significance. Obviously, it does not appear to be a "pro" model like the ENG Betacam series. Jedo1507r 20:28, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete, not important. --Quoxplor 11:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps merge if someone feels like it. Neutrality^talk 22:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] The Sidney Comic

The Sidney Comic was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

I've been collecting comics for 10 years, and haven't been able to find a single amount of evidence that this comic strip ever existed. I've checked hundreds of issues of The Beano from not only the time period this article was made (mid-2003) but from everywhere, and nothing. I've scoured the internet, and nothing, save for some forks and mirrors. I've checked annuals, nothing, summer specials, nothing...notice that the original (IP address) author has repeatedly tried to blank his/her article since he/she wrote it, which further confirms that this is just a load o' made up codswallop. BillyH 01:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Here is the full text of the first revision: The Sidney comic has Sidney the spiky haired student,Wiggy his dog,Spiker his cat and Jo,Leon and Jack his birds.Sidney wishes to o on a adventure with only Danny the leaderof the bash street kids. I daresay this was a speedy then; unfortunately, it is not in its current form. Delete as non-humorous hoax, and prepare special commendation for BillyH in acknowledgment of his extraordinary effort. JRM 02:38, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete: Unverifiable, and BillyH did the legwork on that. (The Roy Lichtenstein Machine Gun Award for studious research on cartoon topics to BillyH?) Geogre 16:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 04:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DreamGuy 09:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not important. --Quoxplor 11:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 22:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Herman H. Neuberger

Herman H. Neuberger was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

"A leader in his community, Herman H. Neuberger has saved the lives of many through his work and quiet diplomacy. Valued for his keen wisdom and integrity, many seek out his advice. He is the President of Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore, Maryland."

I'm not sure if the president of a Rabbinical College qualifies for an encyclopedia, but more importantly if you want to claim he saved the lives of many you need to say how and provide a cite.

Also, who values him for his keen wisdom and integrity? Either delete everything except his position or delete the whole thing. Mike Friedman 22:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS. I know the heading for the deletion request should be third level, but I can't seem to change it on the page... assistance would be appreciated.

• Delete, he is already mentioned in the Yeshiva Ner Yisrael: Ner Israel Rabbinical College article. That should be enough. The article, the college article, and a cursory Google search do not give me any reason to think that this man is notable except for being the president of this college. Sietse 11:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to the college article. Rje 15:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. A redirect might prevent recreation (and might not), but if there are any people out there typing the name into a search box, they can read up on the college. (Did he know he was saving those lives?) Geogre 16:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. non NPOV article. Megan1967 00:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 02:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Mikkalai 04:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not important. --Quoxplor 11:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Neutrality^talk 22:46, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Diego Caleiro

Diego Caleiro was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Vanity. And philosophising on "sexual freedom" is hardly unique. --Cmprince 05:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• del.Mikkalai 06:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Altogether now: "You're so vain...". Rje 15:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• He's 18 years old. At 18, all you can philosophize about is sex. Note the link to transhumanism, too. (I almost think going to that article and sniffing out everything that links to it would be as good as a second VfD page.) Not notable at this point. His "important mind" will need to accomplish something more than self-satisfaction. Geogre 16:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 02:01, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not important. --Quoxplor 11:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. And I hope he gets lots of spam for putting his email there, too. Neutrality^talk 22:46, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Frances the Mute

Frances the Mute was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Proposed album with unverified track listing. 172.161.56.164 05:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Can be re-added when the album is real. --Cmprince 05:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The Mars Volta have performed at the Big Day Out and toured supporting the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, so they are a major second-tier band at least. I'd guess this material is as accurate as most of our stuff! Assuming that, we'll certainly want an article on this album as soon as there's as official announcement, and that won't be long now. Andrewa 08:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The album has been confirmed by the artist, the track listing has apparently been verified, and considering the release of cover art by Storm Thorgerson, it's quite definitely a real album. The band appear big enough that the album is of some significance, enough to be included in wikipedia. Bookofjude 14:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, this is going to be released, and by a fairly well known band. Like sub-stubs, I don't think these articles should be created, but I don't think they should be deleted if they are. Rje 15:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Contributor should store the page in his or her user space and then post it when the album is out. There are many slips between cup and lip, and many confirmed albums don't get released (forget "Smile" and remember only "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot"). Speculative material is unverifiable. When the album is released, then, well, I still don't think it's good to have an article on it (this isn't "Let It Bleed" we're talking about here), but it would be unobjectionable. I.e. I'm voting delete until the record is real. Geogre 16:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, at least until it's released. --fvw* 18:38, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete, as the album has not been released it qualifies as non-notable. Megan1967 00:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a rumor or fan site. Recreate when the album is released. DCEdwards1966 02:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! There's already a single out, "The Widow," and if we can have information about NIN's unreleased With Teeth, we should have this. (sorry, realized i hadn't signed earlier) Matthewcieplak 11:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep The album has been leaked, and the track-listing is all but confirmed. The album clearly exists. Regardless, if someone is wondering what "Frances the Mute" is, even if it isn't out yet, checking on Wikipedia should lead them to an answer. No reason not to have this article up. - MMBKG
• Delete. Unverifiable future event. Leaks are interesting and "all but confirmed" is nice but those do not rise to the necessary standards of verifiability for an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 06:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -Ld | talk 04:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not important. --Quoxplor 11:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if a bonifide release - it's no less important than other album articles - but the needs major clean-up. It's virtually unreadable as it currently stands. 23skidoo 17:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, the genie has left the bottle. GRider\^talk 18:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• The group has officially announced the tracklist through its MySpace page [[1]] Sorry to post again, but this is important. Now, the tracklisting IS indeed verified, and the album is available on the Internet, meaning it is no longer "proposed". This article now meets the quota that was brought up in the first place. - MMBKG

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

[edit] MP5KA4

MP5KA4 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

The article reads:

Desicription from computer game Jagged Alliance II Wildfire:

"This German submachine gun is the must-have for Die Hard Terrorists and two-bit South American drug lords."

Borderline {{delete}}? --Cmprince 05:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Deleted. It is false info. It is Japanese Mazuren machine gun. Mikkalai 06:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Whoa, you did what?! The MP5KA4 is a well known compact sub-machinegun from Heckler und Koch, part of the MP5 family. I will re-instate the page as a re-direct. Dan100 09:41, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, that's much better. Thanks. Cmprince 13:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Shame on me; it was late, and first several google hits were for Mazuren, and I was lazy. Anyway, the article was useless. Mikkalai 17:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Liger

Liger was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Peronally I think the article kicks ass. Stromire '07

This animal simply does not exist -- the idea of it was either created or popularized by the film Napoleon Dynamite Perhaps one could rework the article in order to make these facts clear; otherwise, it needs to be deleted. Humor is great, but it's isn't The Onion.Zantastik 06:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)'

• Of course ligers exist. They've certainly existed long before the film Napoleon Dynamite did! [2] [3] or just google for 'lion tiger crossbreed" - Nunh-huh 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, this has survived multiple VfD attempts beforehand, IIRC. James F. (talk) 16:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article. Nomination appears to be based on poor information. Andrewa 18:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It would have taken 5 seconds via google to work out that these and tigons are real animals. Xezbeth 18:29, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, save the ligers! --fvw* 18:42, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Keep, I've seen one, at a Renaissance festival near Boston. It was an amazing creature. It was billed, I think, as the largest cat in the world, and it was huge. Paul August ☎ 18:47, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I first heard of tigons an ligers years ago, but I've never heard of Napoleon Dynamite. P Ingerson 20:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Real hybrid animal. Jayjg | Talk 23:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Ill-informed nomination. Icundell 00:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: DCEdwards1966 01:55, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons above. --Szyslak 04:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it really exists.
• Keep: I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time like this -- I should have checked it out, and I totally blew it. Anyway, live and learn, all that -- but the article should stay.Zantastik 10:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually I enjoyed reading your nomination :) If you like, you can strikethrough your previous comments like this <s>abc</s> Kappa 02:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Well, glad it is settled. Whoever left a warning about this on the talk page of the equivalent Persian entry: thanks anyways. – Kaveh ^(talk) 02:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: An honest mistake, yes, but next time try referring to a real encyclopedia or Just Google It before wasting our time. GRider\^talk 18:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Neutrality^talk 22:47, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

I'm editing this page just coz someone said not to, and to make a point. Wouldn't it be an idea to DISABLE editing options for pages which "should not be edited"? Oh, and it seems passing strange that "liger" was put forward for deletion because quite a few people had seen Napoleon Dynamite, and, being the post literate generation assumed it MUST come from there. I mean, this is the internet. It takes a couple of seconds to look up the word, the derivation, the history etc. I'm not that surprised that people thought ligers came from Napoleon Dynamite, more surprised that there were sufficient numbskulls of this persuasion to have the liger article listeed for deletion. Sheeeesh.....Myles325a (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tigon

Tigon was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

This animal simply does not exist -- the idea of it was either created or popularized by the film Napoleon Dynamite Perhaps one could rework the article in order to make these facts clear; otherwise, it needs to be deleted. Humor is great, but it's isn't. Zantastik 06:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course ligers and tigons exist. They've certainly existed long before the film Napoleon Dynamite did! Google for 'lion tiger crossbreed" - Nunh-huh 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It's got an entry in the Encylopedia Britannica [4], but perhaps we should still merge it with "List of fictional creatures in Napoleon Dynamite". Kappa 18:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination appears to be based on poor information. Andrewa 18:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Of course it's real. I suppose ligers, zeedonks, and geeps are all joke entries as well? Xezbeth 18:27, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not to mention mules. Keep. -Branddobbe 07:02, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, tigons are real animals. --fvw* 18:40, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Keep. I first heard of tigons and ligers years ago, but I've never heard of Napoleon Dynamite. P Ingerson 20:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Real hybrid animal. Jayjg | Talk 23:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Icundell 00:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I saw a show on the tele a couple of years ago about them. Rje 01:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: DCEdwards1966 01:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Real animal. EventHorizon 03:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, just as everyone else says, it's a real animal.
• Keep, I seen them on TV, their real
• Keep: I was apparently completely wrong here, and I apologize for wasting everyone's time.66.61.19.199 10:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: They are definitely real. Jet 17:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: An honest mistake, yes, but next time try referring to a real encyclopedia or Just Google It before wasting our time. GRider\^talk 18:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] The good of war

The good of war was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

• Listed here because it is an article that cannot fail to be POV (given the title). Any discussion of war's relative merits can go at war, it seems to me, or perhaps on certain pages relating to branches of ethics or the philosophy of war. Jwrosenzweig 08:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Roughly agree with Jwrosenzweig. Discussion of the (possible) benefits of war belongs in Wikipedia somewhere, but not in this form and certainly not at this title. Isomorphic 08:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'. Gamaliel 08:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I was going to say that! Jeff Knaggs 10:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • My sentiments exactly. ;) Neutrality^talk 22:43, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not NPOVable. —Korath^会話 09:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to war. There is a section there called: "Costs and benefits of war". --Edcolins 09:28, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Inherently POV. I'm not really agreed that anyone will search this, nor that we need to prevent recreation (a speedy upon recreation would be better, because this isn't just a mistake). Geogre 16:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Already covered at the war article. Antandrus 16:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV, particularly the title. Jayjg | Talk 23:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Toss it out and don't look back (bad title in addition to POV, it should be The Merits of War) Gkhan 02:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Since when is bombing innocent people a "good?" Lockeownzj00 00:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Iceberg3k 03:32, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, but there is potential for a NPOV article on the ethics of war. (Does one already exist?) As it is, however, delete.
• Delete. Nice idea, but it should be renamed and the article altered to reflect more NPOV, which wars were/are "good" is quite subjective --Jimius 14:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Covered more rationally at just war. Neutrality^talk 22:43, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Subtractive color space

Subtractive color space was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 information is simply incorrect. Where's the wiki tag for that? No potential to become encyclopedic

Subtractive color space

Subtractive color is not a color space, it is a system that describes how pigments and dyes, etc. mix togther. The title is Subtractive color. I kept trying to redirect it. But I have a foe.

And the article is not correct either. Because Subtractive color is not a color space, the author begins his definition with that assumption.

It can be confusing since RGB can be a color space and CMYK is a color space, but one must not dive first into color spaces, without first explaining the theory--Dkroll2 05:37, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

• This is correct. Delete Ta bu shi da yu 09:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Space or no space, the article is extremely redundant with the subtractive color article. The fact that it's not a color space makes it that much worse. Probably can delete but barring that it's a definite redirect. DreamGuy 09:49, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• merge with subtractive color then delete. In order for the poll to be legitimate, after 7 days voters' participation in the poll should exceed 1.28% of the active voters population. The decision of that poll (assuming that it is a legitimate one) should be valid for ever. The decision method that should be used in order to extract the result from the poll should be the best rated poll option method. --- Iasson 11:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --Pjacobi 14:03, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think anything can be salvaged. Rje 14:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 04:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• So what is the case for deletion? Keep. Mark Richards 21:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• That's nice, but do you have a reason as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy? You know, the thing you're supposed to read before nominating anything to this page - David Gerard 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Information that is wrong (in a non controversial way) is inherently nonnotable, that's a solid reason per the deletion policy. Or are you suggesting that articles with titles that are just plain wrong need to stay? DreamGuy 00:10, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge with subtractive color. Doesn't look like there is any new content to merge, though. Then redirect or delete. If nothing else, "subtractive color" is the more common term. --MarkSweep 00:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• According to your user page, you're knowledgable about this sort of thing. I'll take you word on the correctness of the article and say delete. And if you have a beef with a user that negotiation isn't resolving, the next step might be Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation, I believe. hfool 01:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Well, if what you are saying is right, that the article is inheritly inaccurate, then ofcourse we should delete it.
• User:Dkroll2, you may have had the best intentions, but you did not succeed in redirecting subtractive color space; instead you blanked it [5]. Which was reverted as usual. I see that "subtractive color $FOO" gets hits for FOO in [scheme, primaries, mixing, space] and probably other variations; all those should redirect to subtractive color. Agreed w/ User:Mark Richards and User:David Gerard: no case for deletion. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 12:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I think the entries should be merged, and Subtractive Color Space made a redirect. Even though "subtractive" isn't a "color space", that doesn't make the entry redundant because there are "color spaces" that are "subtractive", so the phrase "subtractive color space" has meaning (and is in use). There seems to be some attempt to maintain both entries, which would be just silly. If there are people with good information to add on this topic, they call all do better by focussing on making just one better entry. Notinasnaid 17:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) On reflection, I am saying do not delete; deletion is for subjects that should not be there and have no alternative. It can be turned into a redirect without the formality of a deletion. Notinasnaid 17:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is it an invalid concept, but it's just a confused rehash of information from subtractive color. It appears that no articles link here, either. neckro 08:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Saroj khanal

Saroj khanal was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Vanity, not notable. Kosebamse 09:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Contributions:nothing in particular. Isomorphic 09:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vain. Rje 14:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Painfully honest vanity article from a 19 year old. At least he admits that he hasn't done more because he lacks knowledge and maturity. Geogre 16:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vamity page. But points for honesty. Shimeru 21:12, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai
• Delete, for reasons above. Andris 09:31, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch 10:39, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity page. Megan1967 02:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. Merge with Khanalsar's page? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 14:37, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin

Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

• Original research. And bad one. --Pjacobi 13:58, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• delete Original Nonsense. adamsan 14:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• delete Matt 14:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 14:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, bad original research. Shame, because some effort seems to have been put in. Rje 14:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: There are some folks who will devote endless hours to a proposition, so long as it gives the thrill of secret knowledge. (Original research.) Geogre 16:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Adam Bishop 17:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I love bad research. I particularly love the bad research of Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin and Galileo, and many others who were confidently dismissed in their time. But fortunately, we don't need to waste time trying to decide whether this is good research or bad, because either way it doesn't belong here. Andrewa 17:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nobody ever accused Darwin of "bad research." He was an obsessively meticulous researcher and even those who disagreed with him acknowledged the quality of his research work, particularly his taxonomy. The disputes over Darwin's work were entirely to do with the interpretation of his findings. To compare him with this fool is quite insulting. Adam 01:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oh dear. To my mind, there is a case to be made that the Byblos syllabic scripts were influenced by Egyptian hieratic script (hieroglyphics being somewhat cumbersome for everyday use), which in turn is likely to have led to a Semitic - Greek - Etruscan - Roman progression over the next 1200 years or so. This article doesn't make that case, however, even remotely. Delete. Fire Star 17:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No original research. Nothing more need to be said. -- llywrch 21:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. As for the merits of the hypothesis, "circumstantial evidence" says it all—this conclusion is a real stretch. — Gwalla | Talk 21:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No original research, particularly when it is this bad. Jayjg | Talk 23:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• OK, so everyone agrees it should be deleted. When is it actually going to be deleted? Adam 07:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• After the usual fice days. We never have been able to get general consenus to hasten the process even when consensus on a particular article is obvious. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• MOTION TO DELAY DELETION: This is no joke: The article is currently under review by the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. — Roylee  :)

This plea is from 4.241.219.143, and is the only edit from that user. It is unlikely that such an article is of any interest to a serious researcher. Fire Star 05:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Cries out for speedy deletion. It's absurd that there's no policy that would permit this. - Nunh-huh 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No redeeming characteristics in this piffle. Evertype 15:59, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but I wish there were a place to preserve some examples like this. I think it would have great pedagogical value. Also I think a considered delay is appropriate even for "obvious" cases such as this. --agr 18:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't decide if this is a hoax, or actual original research, but it definitely fails as either. Edeans 02:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, poorly researched. Megan1967 02:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Carol Heather Goldsmith

Only notability apparently is that she is a musician's wife. --BM 14:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, unless proof can be shown that she is encyclopedic beyond her marriage to someone else. Rje 14:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to her husband. Attendant fame. Geogre 16:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: IMO a deletable substub, but listed when only seven minutes old, and only the second edit of a newbie. The first was just the sort of spadework that indicates a valuable contributor. Possibly the contibutor was expanding the article when the VfD notice was added, and was stopped by an edit conflict. As I'd like to see a little time allowed for such newbies to grow their articles, no vote at this stage. Andrewa 16:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless at least some statement of why she is notable beyond her marriage to someone else is given. Newbie or not, with a new article if you can't give that within ten minutes of starting, you shouldn't have started in the first place. Average Earthman 17:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 04:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and delete the link to it from the article on her husband. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Megan1967 02:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Hey guys, chill :) - the only reason I made the page was because I saw a red link on Goldsmith's page and I knew who she was. I added a little more, but deleting the page and removing the link on Goldsmith's page, while noting (on his page) that she composed the lyrics and sang in the song for his only Oscar-winning score may be an idea. Jgofborg 19:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rebel Troop Carrier

Star Wars sub-sub-trivial. Unexpandable.

• Merge and redirect to vehicle of Star Wars or somesuch. Otherwise delete. Rje 16:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• How about letting smaller things like this be added to a single "Misc vehicles" entry? VT-16 18:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as subtrivial. I was a big Star Wars fan for a while, and have never heard of this thing. It is my POV that no encyclopedia, even an extremely LARGE encyclopedia, would ever need this. In fact I wonder if it even has an entry in the official Star Wars encyclopedia. Isomorphic 10:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 12:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is subtrivial fancruft. Furthermore, this seems very suspiciuosly like original research in that I believe this person may have just seen a random vehicle in the background and decided to attach this name to it. I cannot recall any West End Game product that has named these vehicles, and no other source would have expanded on something seen in the background of a few shots in those movies. This most likely is a Ubrikkian Personnel Skiff Model IV, which appears in Episode IV as well and gets a write-up in the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, but in that case, this article is in the wrong place. I feel all of this is moot, since fancruft like this should just be eliminated, but this detailed analysis is for the benefit of those who may not realize that the subject of the article itself is of questionable authenticity. Indrian 06:26, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the information, Indrain - I hope those who vote an uncritical keep on almost every article can learn something from it. Elf-friend 08:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete per Indrian's findings challenging the verifiability of this information. Rossami (talk) 06:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. ugen64 04:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I´ve put it in with other obscure vehicles. Apparantly, different sources call it different names, troop carrier, skiff, hover sled (http://dutch-starwars.com/). I chose troop carrier, because that is actually mentioned in the movie. 62.92.82.10 15:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zip.ca

Zip.ca was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 this is is a lenghty advert. Alexp73 17:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes it looks like a company promo. Delete unless substantially rewritten for NPOV, distinctiveness and verifiability. Kappa 17:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: 100% advertising for NetflixEh. Geogre 17:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. --LeeHunter 23:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Jayjg | Talk 23:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: advertising DCEdwards1966 01:45, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 04:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] BCoD 04

BCoD 04 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

If there's anything less notable than a graphic that temporarily appeared on a web page please let me know. --LeeHunter 17:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This is completely unnecessary information. It's silly to report each and every website glitch.--Deadworm222 15:09, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This may even be a gloat by the hacker themselves. I'm tempted to speedy it on the grounds that the author has twice now deleted speedy tags, but not very... policies are important. Andrewa 17:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Extremely dumb. Either someone was in an awful hurry to write it up, or someone knew it was going to happen. In either case, there is 0 encyclopedic content here. Geogre 17:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Actually, I tried to speedy it an hour or two before it appeared here. Perhaps the author deleted the speedy tag, or the admin thought it wasn't eligible. --BM 18:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does appear that the author removed the speedy tag that I added. I'm re-adding it, but leaving this here also, in case it is removed again. --BM 18:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE! It was a glitch. That's not worth an entry.
• I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the author on this one: Not a Candidate for Speedy Deletion. Delete though. --fvw* 18:52, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
  • Comment: But the point was I don't think the author should be the one to remove the speedy tag. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | Talk 23:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 01:44, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --AlainV 03:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 04:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• PLEASE DELETE This is a waste of space.
• Sorry. I'm the author and I deleted the Speedy Entry thing because I didnt know what it was. I'll leave it up for now on. Sorry, again.
  • Please sign your posts here, user:Mathwizxp?. Andrewa 12:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Don't Delete: Some people may be interested in this information. Perhaps it could be relocated to the general Harry Potter/ JK Rowling articles?

• Don't Delete: Come on, this is awesome.
• Don't Delete: This rocks the house, people! Us nerds live uff this kind off stuff!

Don't Delete: I'm a member of the BCOD. I re-did the entry on there. It's a little more informative, but not much. But still, I find that it is an important entry.

Please sign your posts, User:141.152.27.231. But a member of what? This doesn't seem to match the article we're discussing. Andrewa 12:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete

• Don't Delete: I believe the fact that it involves so many people makes it worth the page. Of course a better, encyclopedic description would be more appropriate.

• Delete. RW 04:56, Jan 2, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Network army

Network army was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Personal essay. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --BM 17:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete --fvw* 18:43, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete. No POV essays. Jayjg | Talk 23:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 01:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 01:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: --AlainV 03:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: this is ghastly Lectonar 08:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete who puts these things here? Gkhan 02:36, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] EForge

EForge was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Software under development. Article doesn't say by whom. Article gives no reason to consider this notable. --BM 18:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 18:43, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete, sounds like a project pitch. Rje 01:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 01:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Shadow (song)

Another Ashlee Simpson song. Normally I would suggest merging with Autobiography, but both articles are already bloated, and Everyking reacts badly to major changes to Ashlee-related articles. —tregoweth 18:42, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. There was too much material in the original article, so Everyking acted perfectly appropriately and split this off into a separate article. If you've got enough time to complain about too much good material, there's a whole list of articles that need to be moved over at cleanup. Meelar (talk) 18:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Ashlee Simpson articles have too much material, period. —tregoweth 19:01, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is gonna be in awfully bad shape if this kind of reasoning prevails. Everyking 19:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia will be an entirely useless information dump if it doesn't.Dr Zen 01:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Huh? We kept La La, didn't we? By a majority, in fact. Isn't that enough of a precedent? Well, anyway, keep, of course. Everyking 18:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep especially since La La was kept and no-one has explained how this is different. Kappa 19:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, this hasn't failed any of the deletion criteria. And if I remember correctly these song articles were seperated from Autobiography due to the bloated nature of that article. Rje 01:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Given the lack of consensus to delete La La, this should not have been listed. There is not too much good material in the Autobiography article though. There's too much bloat, verging on nonsense, which no one can edit.Dr Zen 01:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Precedents mean nothing. The fact that Autobiography is bloated is no excuse for yet more cruft. Waterloo Sunset deserves an article, we cannot know whether Shadow does or not. If we wait five years or so before adding articles like this, the quality will go up immeasurably. If we delete this, Everyking will just have to learn to edit.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't have anything insightful to say. Tuf-Kat 01:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Songs are fine. Rhobite 05:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep.--JuntungWu 08:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Bring it back in 2014, let's say. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Why don't you argue for deleting the article on the Indian Ocean earthquake and bringing that back in ten years, too? If something is current, people are going to want to know about it. Interest will naturally tend to decline as time passes. Everyking 13:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The Indian Ocean earthquake is intrinsically significant. Decline of general public interest in it will not alter that. We don't know whether Shadow is also significant until public interest has had time to decline and we can assess its significance accurately. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • If the song is famous, it's significant. That's all there is to it. Everyking 13:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I have never heard the song. Nobody I spoke to today had heard the song. You say it's famous? I say: not very! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The Indian Ocean earthquake has killed or disrupted the lives of millions of people. Shadow is another Ashlee Simpson song. Get the difference? --BM 13:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I get the difference. But I think you missed my point. The point was that you don't go deleting things at the time when people are most likely to want the information, only to promise to restore the info at some later point when fewer people will want it. Everyking 13:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • On the contrary,now is the best time to get rid of it, when information on it is available universally. Should anybody atill remember the song in two years' time and want to write about it, then will be the time to recreate the article. I think we should adopt this as a matter of policy--no articles on popular culture until twenty-four months after the official release date. In the meantime, pop it on Musicwiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There are articles on all kinds of songs on Wikipedia, why is this one less deserving? Bryan 16:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. chocolateboy 18:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know the background of this whole Ashlee Simpson article controversy, but I really do not see any problems here. -Ld | talk 18:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete. --fvw* 19:35, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Keep. Norman Rogers\^talk 21:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of it and I hate modern pop music with a passion. VfD is unwarrented and may be a spillover from the main article. hfool 22:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - this nomination is a thorough violation of the Wikipedia:deletion policy and should be removed - David Gerard 23:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • How can a nomination be a violation of the policy? Would you have preferred these matters to be settled by one bunch of bozoes slapping a merge in and another bunch erasing the merge? Far better have the rationale for this, to some, quite inexplicably trivial article discussed openly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Because you're only supposed to nominate stuff with a reason that's actually on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. See the top of WP:VFD - David Gerard 09:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I have read it and find no support for your claim. Any article can be listed on VfD. One of the good reasons to list an article is that one believes that it is not, and has no potential to becom, encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because somebody released a single or produced a trading card with a picture of a monster on it a produced an episode of a situation comedy, does not mean that the song or the card or the television program episode merits an individual article in an encyclopedia. These things should be discussed to decide which things should be kept, which should be merged, which belong on another wiki, and so on. This is why we have VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • At the bottom of WP:VFD: Under the section, describe, in accordance with our deletion policy, why the page should be deleted. It's a hit song, even if it's a shit song - David Gerard 22:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Not being encyclopedic is a reason for deletion. I'm not saying it's a shit song--I've never heard it. It may be a great song, but unless it's up there with Tamborine Man or Happy Birthday or Good Vibrations or Teenage Spirit I don't see much point in keeping it. We don't yet know whether it is or not (time will tell). For now, it's a hit song, but there are hundreds of hit songs every year. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Damn if you ain't right, Tony. Looks like we've got a lot of work ahead of us—hundreds of articles to write! I say we alternate tasks between us. Since I've already written an article on "Shadow", I assign you responsibility for writing an article on Usher's "Yeah!", and then you can pick one for me next. Everyking 00:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I think its comendable that its that long. Praise be to the writers Gkhan 02:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, great article. bbx 04:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 12:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Given the foregoing discussion, would you mind indicating which part of the deletion policy says that not being "notable" is a criterion for deletion?Dr Zen 23:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base", just because it exists does not mean that it should be grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. See point 7 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The song itself never even reached the Top 10, it had little impact outside of Simpson fans, it did not change the face of music history, the article does not mention any external grounds for notability, therefore it is imo not notable. Megan1967 23:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete The entry was well done, but I do not believe it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. Why not condense the article and add it to Simpson's page, or delete it all together?--CiaraBeth 01:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Far more detail than I personally would put into one Ashlee Simpson song. But it's a good article for what it is, and while it's not a core subject I see no reason to take it out; I'd suggest merging if it were shorter, but not deleting in any case. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 22:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pieces of Me

Pieces of Me was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Another Ashlee Simpson song. Normally I would suggest merging with Autobiography, but both articles are already bloated, and Everyking reacts badly to major changes to Ashlee-related articles. —tregoweth 19:01, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

• This song was a big hit. An absurd listing. Of course keep. Considering the fact that La La was kept by a majority before, this is rather outrageous. Everyking 19:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. What deletion criterion is this supposed to have met? Xezbeth 19:14, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable song. Megan1967 00:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a fan but both she and the song are somewhat notable, I've heard of them, and this article does not appear to have violated any deletion policy. Normally I would probably say merge, but I don't think it's appropriate considering both the size of the articles involved and the needless ruckus that will ensue. Rje 01:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Given the lack of consensus to delete La La, Everyking can now write enormous articles on Ashlee's farts and burps and we'll be keeping them too.Dr Zen 01:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. And learn to write such articles themselves, instead of swarms of stubs. Mikkalai 04:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Songs are fine. Rhobite 05:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 08:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for the sake of consistency. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Consistency with what? Deletion would be inconsistent with precedent and with the general understanding of what sort of topics Wikipedia should include. Everyking 13:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'd only accept an article on a song if it made number one in at least one major market, or was particularly notable otherwise (if not, it should be merged with the album). This just about makes it, but I'd have to say the sheer length of the article suggests someone being a little over involved in creating this - good editing may be required to make it a good article for wider interest rather than just Ms Simpson's more obsessive fans. If not kept, merge a well edited version with the album. Average Earthman 17:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. chocolateboy 18:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Unenthusiastic Keep. Celebrity fancruft, and should probably be deleted, but no policy covers it. Auto movil 18:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, see above. -Ld | talk 18:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I want to add, also, that these articles are very well written, to the degree that they're better than most commercial celebrity PR. If there were an Ashlee Simpson magazine, these articles could appear in it unaltered. The issue is that they're uncritical fan articles, on topics that are becoming minutely small. It wouldn't be a pleasure to delete them, and I'd mourn their splendor as I pulled the delete-handle. Auto movil 19:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete --fvw* 19:35, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Keep. Norman Rogers\^talk 21:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Even more notable than Shadow (song). hfool 22:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - this nomination is a thorough violation of the Wikipedia:deletion policy and should be removed - David Gerard 23:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 02:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this lovely article. bbx 04:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Would fit well on a new (non-Wikipedia) project called MusicWiki. Let's have a rule: no popular culture until at least twenty-four months after release. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You know, one of the advantages of Wikipedia over a standard encyclopedia is that we can cover current topics. Everyking 14:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Tony. Elf-friend 12:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Everyking: They're lapidarily-written articles on topics that are extremely ephemeral and celebrity-based. I wish they were on something besides a teeny-pop artist's latest PR maneuverings. I wish they were somewhat critical, including the same information, but they're in a context such that every year, for over fifty years, such meowings (pardon me) have been 'important news,' for the month they've been relevant, and then have been supplanted by other meowing. For fifty years. Ashlee Simpson -- Even if I thought she were important, I wouldn't support articles based on individual contemporary teen-pop songs. Auto movil 19:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this and other Ashlee Simpson songs. Ephemeral and celebrity-based? Yes. But these are not criteria for deletion. Meelar (talk) 21:55, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and I say this as someone who is very devoted to Wikipedia's music articles and a big fan of music, in spite of thinking Simpson is a talentless hack and this song a supreme example of that. This article's existence makes Wikipedia better. I agree it should be trimmed, as should the album, but deletion is unwarranted. Tuf-Kat 21:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Fancruft. A song about a 15-minutes-of-fame celebrity girl's boyfriend isn't notable. The highest debut it got anywhere was #3, which hardly makes it worthy of inclusion since many other songs throughout music history have had that same distinction. --Idont Havaname 23:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, part of my comment wasn't accurate, but I still don't think that this song affected history enough to be worth a keep, at least for now. --Idont Havaname 23:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see any reason to delete this. Dbenbenn 18:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written, well-documented, totally NPOV and should be held up as a textbook example of what Wikipedia is all about. I agree that her musical talent is questionable and her fame probably fleeting, but those are no reasons I can see to delete this. A lot of time, effort and research went into this article. It's darn near featured quality IMO. Beats the living daylights out of the vanity articles and nanostubs that bombard the site every day. - Lucky 6.9 19:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As in the above vote, I'd suggest merging if it were shorter, but not deleting, thus keep. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 22:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam Masterhomer 01:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Spam?! Everyking 01:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I have to hear this inane song on the radio every day, but I'll defend it here. --Ryan! | Talk 11:18, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There is no point in the senseless deletion of this article. GRider\^talk 18:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The song was a big enough hit. LostCluster 02:41, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Jens Alfke

A software engineer employed by Apple, he has worked as an individual contributor on a variety of projects for Apple. No evidence he is even notable within Apple. He might be in the top 5 or 10 percent of American software engineers in terms of the significance of his work, but that is still tens of thousands of people. Therefore, non-notable. --BM 19:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We have a page on Stickies. We have a page on iChat. We have a page on Safari. Sounds like he might be notable to me. AlistairMcMillan 19:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article says he is on the Safari team. So what? As for iChat and Stickies, there are many such programs. The article doesn't indicate that this guy is considered all that notable even by his employer. How senior is he in the technical hierarchy there? The article does not say. Apple employs probably hundreds, if not thousands, of software engineers. Is he even in the top 50 of them? The burden for notability should be carried by the article. The reader/VfD voter should not have to do independent research to determine it. --BM 19:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just started the page half an hour ago. Perhaps you could give it a week or two to see how it develops? AlistairMcMillan 19:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is already several thousand bytes. When were you planning to mention something notable? --BM 19:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One guy developed Stickies. A decade later it is still included in the Macintosh OS. Having been re-written twice pretty much from scratch. Does that not make the guy notable? AlistairMcMillan 20:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, a lot of people have worked on the Mac OS over the years. Presumably, they all worked on something, and a lot of that code is probably still around and used. That does not make the coder notable. There are tons of sticky-type programs on all sorts of platforms; such programs are not high-tech. Ditto, iChat. Maybe it is just because you haven't done a very good job communicating what a genius this guy is and how highly regarded he is by everyone, but he comes across as a competent programmer employed by a big company in the computer industry, of which there are literally tens, if not hundreds, of thousands in the United States alone. --BM 20:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW We've had a red link for Jens Alfke on the Stickies page for six months now. AlistairMcMillan 20:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what? Besides, you wrote that article too. If I check, I'll probably find it was you who put his name into the article. What is your source of information about him, by the way? Are you a friend of his, or perhaps you are him? --BM 20:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow. So you couldn't be bothered to check the edit history on Stickies and now you are making stupid allegations. Stunning working my friend. Truly first class. For the record, I didn't add the link in Stickies, I don't know the guy and I am not him. AlistairMcMillan 20:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what is your source of information about him, then? --BM 20:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is your allegation specifically? Are you still looking for confirmation that I am not Jens? AlistairMcMillan 20:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are Jens, and I think I've found his on-line resume/job history. Although you could have answered my question. You know, this guy is in his thirties. He's worked on this project; he's worked on that project; team member here; team member there. If I advertised for software engineers, I'd expect to get dozens of resumes that look like this. OK, his might be one of the ones I'd interview, maybe, so he looks a bit better than average on paper, mainly because he's worked for companies, and on projects, I've heard of. He looks like he has a good career in front of him, but he doesn't look any more notable than thousands of other Silicon Valley types who've worked for Apple, Sun, etc over the years. And that is just Silicon Valley. I'm amazed you think he is notable enough for the Wikipedia. --BM 20:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you a Mac user? Do you follow software development at all? He single-handedly developed Stickies, which a decade later is still part of Mac OS X. He pretty much single-handedly developed iChat. User:Chmod007 created a red link when he started the Stickies article. You've made it clear you don't think he is notable. How about we see what everyone else thinks. AlistairMcMillan 22:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not a Mac user; but I am a software developer, and I'm not overly impressed by these things. Moreover, if they were actually very impressive, I would have expected more recognition from his employers. But as you say, its time to let other people decide. --BM 22:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"more recognition from his employers"??? What do you expect? "JENS ALFKE" in 100pt letters on the front page of their website? They've been paying the guy for over ten years (with a break in between) what more should they do for him? AlistairMcMillan 22:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, being employed 10 years as a software engineer doesn't qualify someone as notable, or else there are probably a 100,000 notable software engineers. I've been employed for 25 years as a software engineer, and I don't think I'm notable. Both Apple and Sun have technical career tracks that go up very high in the company. What I meant was that I'd expect to see him in a very senior technical position at Apple -- a senior Architect, Consulting Engineer, technical lead of a major project, etc, one of the maybe 30 or 40 top engineers in the company. --BM 22:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you even read the article before marking it for deletion? He left the company after a few years and then came back. Since then he has been technical lead on Java AWT. Lead developer on iChat and now (AFAIK) the lead developer adding RSS/Atom feed reading to Safari (a highly publicised feature [6]). And like you said he is only in his thirties. And you are aware that all the Stickies-like programs that are available on Windows are copying Jens' Stickies program, right? AlistairMcMillan 22:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Come on BM, this is way too personal. And you can't use the numbers argument ('there must be 100,000...') so what? Wikipedia hasn't got to fit into a binder has it? The article needs editing but not deleting. user:Btljs 23:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• No vote yet. I don't think being "the developer of Stickies" warrants an article; it's not an integral or CUSP-y part of the OS like QuickTime, or the Finder. Nor is it a major separate application (like iTunes or iMovie). The statement that Windows equivalents are "copies" bothers me, too; I think I recall similar programs as far back as MS-DOS (in Borland's SideKick, IIRC. I've never used Tornado Notes but some regarded it highly). "Stickies" is not a seminal application like VisiCalc. The work on AppleScript seems much important to me. But in that regard, it bothers me that the AppleScript article mentions "Sal Soghoian, William Cook, Donn Denman, Warren Harris, Kurt Piersol" and does not mention Jens Alfke. (The "just started the article" argument always leaves me cold, by the way... I don't see why an article needs to be put into the main namespace before a good first draft is complete). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By copies I wasn't referring to note-taking applications in general, just specifically the ones that attempt to duplicate the post-it note look of Stickies for Windows. A google search for "Stickies" returns five attempts to duplicate Stickies for other platforms in the first page of results alone. [7] [8] [9] [10] AlistairMcMillan 00:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. This guy has an interview with him in a respected magazine, who call him the "world famous creator of the Stickies desk accessory". I think he is notable. -Ld | talk 01:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: Seems notable enough to me. DCEdwards1966 01:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Invented Stickies? God bless him. Definite keep.Dr Zen 01:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep.--JuntungWu 08:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as notable enough. DreamGuy 08:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This VfD is either elitism or sour grapes from another software developer who hasn't developed software that is useful enough to warrant a profile article of his own. It's important to understand the unique history of Apple, where applications such as Graphing Calculator have been developed by individual contributors who were not at all "senior in the technical hierarchy". If anything, Wikipedia should have more articles profiling the developers of the tools that so many users find useful, regardless of whether they are senior or not. — DV 10:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Please keep the ad hominem comments to yourself. You are entitled to think this persons contributions are notable, but bear in mind that you are setting a precedent that will make a very large number of software engineers notable, including me. (However I won't write my own article.) If that is what you want to do, fine. Other professions (such as porn actress) seem almost automatically notable on the Wikipedia, so why not software engineers? --BM 12:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    You appealed to personal considerations when you stated, "I've been employed for 25 years as a software engineer, and I don't think I'm notable" and you then went on to deride the superior accomplishments of a respected developer partly because they are not "senior in the technical hierarchy". The merits of Jens Alfke's accomplishments are not limited by his job title. You can throw around "ad hominem" all you want, but it won't do much to hide your sour grapes attitude. I try to assume other editors contributions are made in good faith, but this is VfD abuse. I'm really surprised that someone with 25 years of experience as a software developer is trying to minimize the accomplishments of a fellow developer in this manner.

    Your interjection of "porn actresses" into this discussion is a straw man, please compare apples to apples, for example, would you object if another editor were to expand the profile of Bruce Leak? Would you object if another editor wrote a profile on Peter Hoddie? It's quite an omission that Hoddie isn't even mentioned in the QuickTime article. — DV 15:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    VfD discussions are inherently about whether the article subjects are notable. It should be possible to argue against the subject of a biographical article being notable without being accused of "sour grapes" or of trying to "minimize" someone's accomplishments. For me, someone whose claim to fame is that he has worked ten years for Apple and has written applications like Stickies or iChat is not very notable, even if Stickies itself is (which is debatable). Am I not allowed to voice that opinion? Having said that, on Wikipedia every actor who has ever played a minor role in any movie or TV show, anybody who has written a single episode of Star Trek, anybody who has been a backup singer for Ashlee Simpson, every band that has ever released an album, every writer of any book sold on Amazon, etc are notable. So perhaps it is only fair that software engineers be considered notable if they wrote programs that desktop computer users have used. --BM 18:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, appears noteworthy enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not paper, et cetera. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 00:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable person, 4K hits on Google too. --Andylkl 11:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Edit. Seems a long article for someone of questionable notability. I can't see much use in having such a lengthy biographical article for someone who created a note-taking application. — Chris 02:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Again, I am sorely disappointed that the minimal effort of 5 seconds research was not put forth before nominating this article to be deleted. This individual is clearly notable and far above the ever-shifting notability bar on Wikipedia. GRider\^talk 18:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of holidays in 2004

List of holidays in 2004 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Holidays are usually celebrated every year and not once a year. --Conti|✉ 21:47, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep for the timebeing - review in a few months to see if it's still incomplete. This is like the page at the beginning of a diary which tells you the exact dates of holidays in each year. They do tend to move due to the weekdays moving and being movable feasts like Easter. However, there will be a lot if this is to live up to its intro. of being 'global'. It was created early 2004 and never got very far - still someone might pick it up (though more likely starting with 2005 now) User:Btljs 22:52, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I can a see the idea behind it, but I'm sure the dates of major holidays are covered in other articles. -Ld | talk 01:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You are forgetting (and ignoring the above text) that some holidays are not fixed on exact dates, so the list for each year makes sense. Mikkalai 04:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand that, however listing all the holidays for every single year would be just as useful as making a list of numbers divisible by 2. On the other hand, I would not object to a list of unexpected federal holidays like Reagan's funeral for example. -Ld | talk 18:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

keep. Mikkalai 04:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: In the US, most holidays are either on the specific day (Independence Day, Christmas) or they are determined by a formula (Thanksgiving is on the 3rd Thursday of November). Easter is the only one that I can think of that is difficult. Maybe a list of holidays with the way that their date is determined would be appropriate. DCEdwards1966 06:41, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, seems pointless. And there is no holidays section on the main page powered by this page, the holidays are pulled from the day lists as far as I can tell. hfool 22:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. Wyss 22:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary. Megan1967 02:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, since it can surely be covered (and in some cases already is) in the article Holidays Peter Shearan 13:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Kym Valentine

Kym Valentine was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Non-notable actress. --LeeHunter 22:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Strong keep. She seems very notable according to Google. -Ld | talk 01:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: Agree that she has a significant Google presence. I will change my vote if an Australian can show she isn't notable. DCEdwards1966 01:20, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. She played a major character in a long running soap opera which has achieved massive success both in Australia and here in the UK (and elsewhere for all I know). See Neighbours for more info. The page does need sending to cleanup though. Rje 01:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Article establishes notability, if for no other reason than by saying she worked on a major soap. Tuf-Kat 03:01, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. --JuntungWu 08:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I cleaned it up. Wyss 22:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the cleaned-up version. The original was nearly incomprehensible. I don't blame Lee for posting it here! - Lucky 6.9 00:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep She's one of the main stars of the most famous Australian TV show ever, which was also the top-rated show on British TV at one time.Philip 23:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I'm very disappointed that sufficient research was not done before nominating this article to be deleted. GRider\^talk 18:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Nathan braun

Nathan braun was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Vanity, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. Close scrutiny needed for Google hits. I cannot find independent references to this man; only self-promotion on various sites and with various co-authors. Remaining references to the "Christian Vegetarian Association" are all linklists and forum posts. JRM 16:00, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete: Entirely known as an activist, but the activism is not notable, and he does not appear to be notable otherwise. The dear knows, it's possible to achieve this many hits with 6 months of sitting at the computer and eating meat pies. Geogre 16:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 18:43, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable self-promotion. Megan1967 23:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 01:16, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Mikkalai 04:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this vanity ad and eat an avocado. Wyss 22:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Stonecutters Guild

Stonecutters Guild was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

• Delete.* I've no idea what this is about. Some sort of gamecruft? Or a satire on the influence of the masons? P Ingerson 23:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I just created the page five minutes ago! Its not complete yet, I just added the first line in about us to make you happy. . . we are a guild in Wurm Online http://www.wurmonline.com
• I think they're trying to build a home page for their online guild, but this is the wrong place for that... Kappa 23:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional. Whenever you create a new page, it says clearly at the top "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:Policy)." And Wikipedia is not a free Wiki host or webspace provider; see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What Dpbsmith said. Inspired by the Stonecutters, who are arguably better known. JRM 23:59, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Delete: for reasons already given. DCEdwards1966 01:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional/vanity. Rje 01:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Death to cruft. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete what everyone above me said, but doubled. Tuf-Kat 02:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Can {copyvio} articles be VfDed? Wurm Online is a self-proclaimed 'alpha test' MMORPG that only gets about 900 hits and an Alexa rank greater that 500K, so I don't think it really needs an article (yet, anyway--a few years and who knows). Niteowlneils
• Delete not because it's cruft, but because it's vanity. Bryan 16:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, it's an ad, basically. Wyss 22:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete blatantly unencyclopaedic. Xtra 09:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a Simpsons reference, if you didn't know. Yes, blatant advert. Luigi30 03:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Dpbsmith. Mrwojo 19:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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