Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 4

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. – AB CD 00:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xxx passwords

While "xxx passwords" passes the Google test admirably, I don't believe that this is a generic term for this kind of site, as the article claims. It originally seems to have been contributed simply as advertising (link now removed), and without even that, there's little left of the article anyway. username: Delete password: rightnow --Rlandmann 23:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if the title is correct, I think we could face a few legal issues. If we ban users for posting their passwords, like Fatheron, I am sure we can delete this too. Zscout370 00:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge/redir to Internet pornography. If you don't think this is at least one generic term for the concept, you haven't been reading enough of the spam in your inbox. ;) Niteowlneils 01:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: if there is a bigger consensus to move the information to Internet pornography, I will change my vote. However, I still do not think we should post links to sites that give out free passwords. Zscout370 02:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't disagree--Wikipedia is not a link farm. The version I saw had no such links, but a statement that some emails/websites give passwords for free access to porn sites, which is true, and mention of a court case, which, if a solid reference is cited, seems like it could be worth noting on the broader article. The main reason I didn't leave my vote as simply 'delete' is because I suspect if it's deleted, it will be recreated at some point, and will have to repeat this discussion. Niteowlneils 16:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Merge with Internet pornography. Mentions of specific sites that give out xxx passwords definitely do not belong on Wikipedia, but the concept itself warrants a mention, although not an article. — JIP | Talk 06:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A more detailed effort about the court case decision should be placed at Internet pornography--ZayZayEM 02:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. This is not encyclopedic at all. Andrew pmk 02:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge with that Internet pornography article. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:05, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge - David Gerard 09:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this might have a line or two in Internet pornography but, it's more or less unnecessary anywhere. gren 13:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as gren states, might deserve a line or two in another article, but would require some editing. Does not deserve its own article. Oliver Keenan 18:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unnecessary on its own. SteveW 19:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
merge as per ZayZayEM. --Thryduulf 21:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Spinboy 22:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete CDC (talk) 23:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete I have serious doubts as to the factuality of this article. But if someone can confirm, then merge per ZayZayEM. --Kitch 12:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge somewhere, don't know what article name would be more suitable for this article but it is a phenomenon that needs to be covered by a great encyclopedia. bbx 16:30, 5 Apr 2005
Keep This is a generic term for this sort of site. They have been going since 1996 - under this name, they are a part of internet history and forced the rethink of many business models. The article does however need extending since there is a lot of history behind this type of site. bbx 20:30, 5 Apr 2005

~~(UTC)~~

I did not make the comment above, someone wrote it and signed it using my name. bbx 22:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Piracy sites are not uncommon. Pornography piracy is no different than any other. The specific facts of this article (that this phenomenon is specifically known by the name "Xxx passwords" as opposed to merely being a searchable phrase or the existence of the alleged court case) are unverified - at least, I couldn't find any evidence that they were true. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a generic term for this sort of site. They have been going since 1996 - under this name, they are a part of internet history and forced the rethink of many business models. The article does however need extending since there is a lot of history behind this type of site. NotBbx 2:30, 6 Apr 2005
Keep Much like 'warez' is a generic term - so is XXX Passwords, try google, thousands of sites with different names all claim to be XXX Passwords websites. Jimmie 4:25, 6 Apr 2005

~~(UTC)~~

- The above two votes were actually made by user:81.178.237.28, the only two contributions from that IP address. Thryduulf 11:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, possibly merge, but don't add links to password harvesters to the article. -Sean Curtin 22:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: This is an obtuse term. All the sockpuppet and false voting is getting old. Just delete it. --Asriel86 00:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete unless I get free access for voting keep. Hedley 02:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge. --Wgfinley 19:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen 64 03:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gillette M3 Power

This is WikiPedia Product placement - TiVO anyone? Nlnnet 00:01, Aug 12, 2005 (UTC)

Advertising. Reads like it's copied from an ad somewhere. Rick K 00:01, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

This screams copyvio, but I can't find it. This article is clearly advertising; however, there must be an article to merge this with (powered razor?). Meelar (talk) 00:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite to confirm to WP standards. Notable razor. Klonimus 01:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, but in order for that to happen, this needs to be deleted to get it out of the edit history. I'll bet this is copied verbatim from the package. Delete present version. - Lucky 6.9 02:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - perhaps if we really must keep - The Gillette Company or Gillette Company products would be a place to merge it?--ZayZayEM 02:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge → The Gillette Company. —Mar ka ci 2005-04-4 T 02:27 Z
Keep famous and notable consumer product. Needs to be de-advert-ed though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Semi-Keep (basically a keep but want to redirect) - I'm surprised that there isn't a general "Gillette Mach 3" Wikipedia article. If there is one then the "M3 Power" should be redirected to there instead because it is basically a part of their successful three-bladed razor series because I have a feeling someone will make a "Gillette Mach 3 Turbo" article someday. --Anonymous Cow 03:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect & Merge with The Gillette Company --Fuzzball! 03:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge to The Gillette Company. Dave the Red 07:01, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep all major brands. N-Man 07:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Given that searching for "M3" and "totally new shaving experience" garners 163 hits on catalogue shopping sites for the same advertising copy, this has to be a Copyvio. As per Lucky 6.9 this must go. We don't have individual articles for individual brands of chewing gum within a family so re-create as Redirect to The Gillette Company, a 4-sentence article about a company with plenty of room for details of its popular products. Uncle G 09:07, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
Keep, merge or rename - the Mach 3 is a notable (and really good) razor and if it doesn't have an article it should. I'm less sure there's an article's worth of material on every variant within the Mach 3 range, however - David Gerard 09:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Gilette. Radiant _* 13:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Gilette. Shimmin 17:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Must be copyvio - Delete and redirect to The Gillette Company which clearly wants expanding. SteveW 17:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Gilette CDC (talk) 04:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
merge inside gillette. Yuckfoo 01:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Either merge as above, or heavily revise to remove hypespeak. The article is fine, the content is poor. --Asriel86 00:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. as others have indicated. --Wgfinley 20:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge, redirect or keep. unsigned comment from a school person.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eclectic Metal

Delete: This isn't a real genre of music. One can describe some metal as being 'eclectic' but it doesn't make it an actual sub genre (like nu metal and death metal) MrHate 03:35, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:11, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is big enough for Eclectic Metal. Klonimus 02:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is more of an unoffical descriptive phrase for some bands but it just might barely make sub-sub genre status. Paradiso 05:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverified - David Gerard 09:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as NN subgenre. Every band wants its own genre these days. Radiant _* 13:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I've never heard of this and I know my metal. The last thing metal needs in more sub-genres Jackliddle 18:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverified. Indrian 05:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete how can there be a genre with "eclectic" in the title? --Asriel86 00:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge Three+ references in first 20 google links; it appears to be a legit, if rare, music term. DDerby 18:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep but needs work. Seems a bit obscure but that's what encyclopedias are for! --Wgfinley 20:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete "A rare genre ... transcending all boundries of classification." A classification transcending classification indeed. Gmaxwell 20:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. ugen 64 03:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ekaterina Svanidze

This person not only does not stand out in their own right, like Vissarion Jughashvili Ekaterina Geladze, but unlike them the article contains negligible information alredy available or easily mergible into Joseph Stalin. 15:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Eventually some one will be able to add to this
Keep Somebody, I'm sure will now enough to make this into an article. All Hitler's various girlfriends have articles so why shouldn't Stalin's wife? Furius 03:17, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:11, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. Wives of great dictators are inherently notable.Klonimus 01:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand--ZayZayEM 02:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Joseph Stalin unless a lot more can be said about her, but I don't think there is much more. Paradiso 05:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge as new section in Joseph Stalin. If the section becomes large enough it can be moved back out into its own article. --Fuzzball! 05:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Stalin. They were only married for a few years, in a period long before he became Soviet ruler. —Sesel wa 05:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 06:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Joseph Stalin. Not notable on her own. It can be moved back if it's sufficiently expanded. Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge - David Gerard 09:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above. Radiant _* 13:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge - the article can always be reinstated if sufficient material is found to justify it. SteveW 19:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above. --InShaneee 21:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Wives of famous people are not intrinsically notable. Rick K 23:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Spouses are not inherently notable. As Fuzzball! said, if the content ever does become sufficiently expanded, it can be moved out then. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - seems to be a good start. --Wgfinley 20:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 17:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott Gotkine

~~Del~~. No notability shown. Mikkalai 17:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I changed my mind after google search, but forgot to remove the note from the page. Mikkalai 07:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:11, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if this is is expanded to become encyclopedic. Klonimus 01:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
~~Query~~ Keep - Has this guy covered/performed in any way notable? How many South American correspondents does BBC have/had? ++ Tah.--ZayZayEM 02:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep He is notable enough in my opinion. He seems to have been a reasonably known journalist for at least 4 years in the bbc. From the bbc's site, it would seem that he is the South American correspondent, so I would assume they only have one. --Fuzzball! 04:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep sufficient notability, but expand. —Sesel wa 05:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment I've expanded the article to include more info. --Fuzzball! 06:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable journalist/reporter. Kappa 06:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per Kappa. Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 09:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. SteveW 19:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm for keeping journalist articles. --Asriel86 00:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Wgfinley 21:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 01:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] European Education Forum

Delete. Appears to be entirely opinion. Not even that well written. — PhilHibbs | talk 16:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:11, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Opinion. Any true article should be placed Education reform in Europe or Education reform in the European Union--ZayZayEM 02:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The title "European Education Forum" sounds like an organization or institution, which is not referred to in the article text. —Sesel wa 05:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - POV rant - David Gerard 09:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There does seem to be a "European Education Forum" as well as various "European (specific field) Education Forum" organizations from a quick Google search. Articles on these may be worthwhile but this is just POV - Delete. SteveW 20:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite to get rid of the POV rant. — JIP | Talk 06:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a soap box. --Wgfinley 20:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 00:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silas Finnegan

Unverifiable and non-notable. Angela . 00:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete agreed.--ZayZayEM 02:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN. --Fuzzball! 04:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. —Sesel wa 05:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Height and weight will soon be too outdated for an encyclopedia anyway. Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and delete - David Gerard 09:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. SteveW 20:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --InShaneee 16:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete van --Asriel86 00:59, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --Wgfinley 20:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 00:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kelsey mcglynn

Vanity. Zzyzx11 00:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 00:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for disambiguation

Current sub-articles by the same author:

Votes for disambiguation/Boom Boom
Wikipedia:Votes for disambiguation/Super Mario Bros.
Votes for disambiguation/Wario

Useless instruction creep. Just do the disambiguation, or bring it up on the talk page, or if it gets heated take it to WP:RFC. --SPUI (talk) 00:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete per SPUI. See also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:VfDis. —Korath (Talk) 00:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Somebody told me to create this article when I started the votes for disambiguation article to state information on how to do it. --TheSamurai 01:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
please delete. Earlier I left notes about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and on the talk page of the creator, User:SamuraiClinton. No response yet. See also Wikipedia:Votes for disambiguation/Super Mario Bros.. I think there was one for Boom Boom but it seems to have been deleted already. FreplySpang (talk) 01:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Uneeded policy creep.--ZayZayEM 02:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Disambiguation should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the relevant users. —Sesel wa 05:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary. See Wikipedia:Requested moves, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Votes for disambiguation?? for a discussion about this page. Rhobite 05:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary. Dave the Red 06:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not needed and POV about VFD. Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, delete and delete - David Gerard 09:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have not seen any cases where creation of disambiguation pages has gone totally wrong, and if it goes wrong it is easy to revert. Sjakkalle 10:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's enough bureaucracy already; the system doesn't seem to be broken, so why use red tape trying to fix it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Heck no. Delete. Radiant _* 13:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary. After so many articles on VfD, most of them deleted, after so many notes left on his talk page, I begin to doubt SamuraiClinton's good faith in these posts. If someone wanted to start a "VfDis" project, I would expect him at least to discuss it on VfD's talk page - by the way, there has been recent discussion about whether the deletion process as a whole works. Why was this never done? I certainly appreciate boldness, but in this particular case it looks like the creator might already have imagined this idead wouldn't find too much support amongst VfDers. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, what SPUI said. Major policy proposals and new voting pages are an area where one should discuss and build consensus first rather than being bold. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not needed. --Carnildo 18:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete for all the reasons given above. DreamGuy 19:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as above. SteveW 20:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seems to be an attempt at circumventing VfD policy. android↔talk 22:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Process circumvention. If you want to disambiguate a page, just do it (after appropriate discussion if needed). Be bold. Firebug 09:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per User:SPUI. Also delete the subarticles. --cesarb 02:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete it, twice. --Wgfinley 20:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. —Korath (Talk) 13:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean 3

Article about the second sequel to the movie Pirates of the Caribbean. Delete as unverifiable because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not even the title is known. The imdb listing says "Since this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely." Many movies have reached this stage and been cancelled, so it is not even certain that the movie will ever be completed or released. We should have an article about it when it is released, not before. Wikipedia is not Variety. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl; maybe mention the plans for it there, maybe not. It really doesn't matter. I'm going to list that stupid little three-article template for deletion too. There's a category, for Christ sake. Postdlf 00:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect agree with Postdlf. There appears to be some certainty about this film's production.--ZayZayEM 02:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. There's nothing wrong with having articles on films not yet in production (see Casino Royale (2006 movie), but there's it's a bit early to have an article on a sequel to a sequel that has yet to come out. 23skidoo 05:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is in Pre-production (see the article's external link), which means that it exists enough to have an imdb.com entry and therefore a WP entry (at least for such a notable franchise). Even if it never gets made it is still notable. Paradiso 05:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable movies in pre-production. Kappa 06:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Megan1967 07:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to discourage recreation. And burn that template - David Gerard 09:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you want to discourage recreation? Kappa 09:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per WP:WIN a crystal ball. Radiant _* 13:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per above. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep the film is in production, so it's actually happening as we write. Also, as more details about the film become available this article will grow. Oliver Keenan 18:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- No, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 is in production, not 3. Rick K 23:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect with Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. If the movie becomes a reality and more info is added, it can be moved back out into its own page. --Fuzzball! 22:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect or merge pure speculation. Rick K 23:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete speculative article and that damned template.--Calton | Talk 00:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Commment: I can understand the desire not to see the title redirect, but surely information regarding the possibility of a sequel is information that can be included in the text of the original Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl as further information about the movie? If the info proves to be incorrect, the page can be updated later with it removed. --Fuzzball! 03:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What's the rush? Why are people so anxious to jump the gun and write articles that cannot be more than unverifiable guesses? Is it like Slashdot "First post" or something like that? Why do we need any material on this until it is a well-established fact? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I can definitely understand your point of view. However, when dealing with something in pop culture, isn't information like the indisputable presence of a rumour (unconfirmed by definition) for a 3rd movie information that those who would look up such an article be interested in? If you can agree to that, then I think you can agree to a merge of the documents. --Fuzzball! (talk) 22:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - No, I don't agree to that. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumors and gossip site. RickK 04:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
      - Okay, well let's ask another question then. Since when did movies become encyclopaedic anyway? I can't remember any other encyclopaedia that I've looked at listing them. Then there is this idea that anything remotely rumour- like in nature can't exist here. By your standards I would think that an article on the graviton is unacceptable. I mean the article itself states "Detecting a graviton, if it exists, would prove rather problematic." Not much chance of any proof in the near future but I doubt (or at least I severely hope) that no one would consider deleting that article. Anyway, my point is that some unproven info has a place here. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, since the two sequels are purportedly being filmed simultaneously. There isn't enough here yet to warrant a full article. Oh, and get rid of that damn template, too. Firebug 09:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Can you document that? RickK 04:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  - Here is an article discussing this matter. It does appear that this is still in the "likely, but not confirmed" stage. I wouldn't particularly object to deletion - but the article will probably wind up being re-created a year or so down the road when more details come out. Firebug 07:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - I have no objections to recreating it once it's been confirmed, filmed, and scheduled for release, and given a real title. Rick K 23:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We don't even consider all released films appropriate for encyclopedia articles. Pre-release, everything we have is unverified. Recreate it after it's been released and made an impact. No future events. Rossami (talk) 04:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless article about a notable film. Xezbeth 12:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- It is not a notable film. This film does not exist, and there is no veriable proof that it will ever exist. RickK 21:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  - If you believe what's being said, then they'll be released about 6 months apart in 2006, and production of both sequels will be back-to-back. If this sequel does fold however, then it doesn't take much to delete it afterwards and not before. Xezbeth 05:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. No concrete information yet exists about this hypothetical sequel. -Sean Curtin 23:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect DDerby 18:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect --Wgfinley 20:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Home Alone

This article consists mainly of the original Home Alone movie. Some content needs to be merged to Home Alone (original movie) since there are a few other Home Alone movies and some notable video game spinoffs.

Merge some content to Home Alone (original movie) and disambiguate for a list of other Home Alone articles. We could have an article about being home alone in real life. --TheSamurai 17:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep, bogus nomination, since the nominator doesn't want it deleted. Added to VFD now as the process was not followed in adding it. --SPUI (talk) 00:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ironically, right after I casted a VfD on this article; I generated a new nomination system for Wikipedia; this nomination system is Votes for disambiguation. And we could cast votes for disambiguation instead. Click here to see the template for votes of disambiguation. --TheSamurai 01:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Note: Votes for disambiguation and Template:VfDis have been posted on VFD and TFD, respectively. Zzyzx11 02:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article should be improved to detail the franchise, and contain sections linking out to main articles on all 4 movies, as well as video games. c.f. Star Wars.--ZayZayEM 02:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. I don't feel it needs to be made into a disambiguation page. This article should cover the first movie and discuss the franchise, with links to separate articles on the sequels. 23skidoo 05:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep all major Hollywood films, and I can't imagine why it really needs dismbiguation as per above. Paradiso 05:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep a notable film series. —Sesel wa 05:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Why do we need to make Home Alone a disambig page? Rhobite 05:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Ridiculous nomination. Don't advocate things you don't want to happen - David Gerard 09:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now, I came up with a different plan; I made Home Alone an article with links to media in the Home Alone series rather than the original movie; the original movie is now in an article called Home Alone (original movie). --TheSamurai 14:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've reverted it to the version of Feb 28. Someone needs to delete the copy-and-paste move at Home Alone (original movie) --Carnildo 19:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Fuzzball! 22:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep as it is, no disambig, no redirect, no whatever. If you wanted to disambig it, some sort of an attempt at consensus on the relevant articles' talk pages would have been preferable to making a unilateral change or inventing new policy. android↔talk 22:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, in concurrence w/ above. Slac speak up! 23:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There's no need to move or disambiguate this. Just mention and link the sequels and the video games. --FuriousFreddy 01:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Malicious delete request. --Kitch 12:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
STRONG keep and expand. I certainly can't speak for the rest of you, but ol' Lucky is getting pretty irritated with a certain user whose creations are becoming a staple of this page. - Lucky 6.9 21:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep as is Yuckfoo 01:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, do not split. Do all movies with sequels need to be disambiguated? -Sean Curtin 23:06, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- His proposal was to disambiguate the movie from the Nintendo game from the Super Nintendo game from the Sega game from the Gameboy game from the second Nintendo game from the second Super Nintendo game from the second Sega game from the second Gameboy game, not to mention the second, third, and fourth movies. --Carnildo 23:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. What's the problem? --Asriel86 01:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Are we joking here? Although the kid is bloody irratating, this film is far above the line of notability. Hedley 03:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Film spawned the term of the same name used in nightly news all the time. --Wgfinley 20:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep and Expand. Why would anyone want to delete an article about a hit family comedy? Come on!CJS102793 00:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 to Honda. —Korath (Talk) 14:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

Honda provides sufficient corporate info. Even if it doesn't, we can just merge these two. Two separate pages is really not necessary...

Delete - Like I stated above... WB 00:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree with your reasons. --Anonymous Cow 02:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - concur --ZayZayEM 02:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect--I agree, no reason not to merge. Meelar (talk) 02:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Honda. WB: Next time, for situations like this one, you might want to first merge the two articles, and then consider posting the resulting redirect page on RFD. This "bypass" method reduces the load on the VFD pages. Zzyzx11 02:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect -- Infrogmation 04:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fork. Megan1967 07:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to discourage re-creation - David Gerard 09:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. May I refer to the text in the yellow box on WP:R: "Redirects are cheap, fun and easier than votes for deletion!". Since no content will be lost by converting this to a redirect, I do not think this nomination was truly neccesary. Now we need to wait until the lag time runs out. Sjakkalle 10:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect - some may look it up by this name. -- 8^D ^gab 13:23, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
Redirect for good reasons noted by others. Do we need to wait for the end of VfD to do it? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect for the reasons above. SteveW 21:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect --Fuzzball! 22:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I certainly did not know about what I should be doing... But do you honestly think anyone would look up Honda Motor Co., Ltd. instead of Honda, Honda car, or whatever? At least not by the hand. There are only three pages linking to it, all three from this VfD page. Merging isn't really necessary either. There's is almost no content in Honda Motor Co., Ltd.. Anyway, I'll make sure I consider Redirect or Merge -- WB 02:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- With that punctuation, it is rather unlikely that anyone should look it up like that. But a redirect won't hurt performance, so unless it's ridiculous (e.g. "worst car ever" -> "honda") I have no problem with that. Radiant_* 07:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  - Honestly, I can see it happening - imagine someone comes across this company name while googling, then decides to copy and paste the whole thing into the Wiki search window to find out more about it... -- 8^D ^gab 15:53, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
    - Probable, but very unlikely. Redirect is fine. So when is it going to done? lol -- WB 00:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as an obvious advertisement. — JIP | Talk 09:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How is this an advertisement? It might be, but it seems like a normal company info page so far. WB 23:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect --Wgfinley 20:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 00:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Smalley

del. notability. Mikkalai 00:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pure vanity, about an 18-yr-old with no achievements listed. Delete. Meelar (talk) 00:47, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity--ZayZayEM 02:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN. --Fuzzball! 03:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. —Sesel wa 05:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - David Gerard 09:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - NN, vanity. SteveW 21:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --Wgfinley 20:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 00:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Parks

I'm glad he is successful in life but he is not notable to be in the encyclopedia. vanity. --Anonymous Cow 01:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment the anonymous contributor that started the article is keeping on deleting the Vfd table. --Anonymous Cow 01:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Gazpacho 01:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 02:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Mikkalai 02:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity--ZayZayEM 02:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity-o-rama Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN. --Fuzzball! 04:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. —Sesel wa 05:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, please. -- Hadal 06:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity and inform user that removing vfd templates is bad conduct. Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - David Gerard 09:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. SteveW 21:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - Not vanity Bobo 22:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Bobo's first edit was yesterday. Joyous 23:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - I've seen worse in terms of vanity NetGeek 02:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please Note that NetGeek doesn't seem to exist as a registered user--ZayZayEM 03:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - Much more notable than most RobSkr 13:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Keep - Where's your heart at? This one is far from vanity DrSpock 18:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Above four removed votes are all from the same IP, which is that of the article creator. Fooling no-one. Hedley 03:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Hedley 03:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Done. --brian0918 ™ 03:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: There is now a perfectly good stub about a notable actor, though the speedied content was added to the article by one of the anons. Xezbeth 15:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm wondering if I should've waited a couple more days before writing the stub... sjorford →•← 18:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --Wgfinley 20:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 transwikied. ugen 64 03:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pageturner

Delete or Transwiki to wiktionary. Possibly replace with REDIRECT to bestseller or novel or something.--ZayZayEM 02:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki a common enough term (though rarely are the two words run together as seen here) but it belongs in wikitionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary. Megan1967 07:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki content to Wiktionary ~~and after that, redirect to bestseller~~. Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- After some more consideration, I'll drop my redirect support. Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki but strongly disagree with the redirect suggested above. Those concepts are unrelated. —Wahoofive | Talk 17:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I share the objection to the redirect to bestseller, they are not the same thing. Kappa 23:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Thats why I suggested novel instead.--ZayZayEM 08:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just transwikied it (see Wiktionary:Transwiki:Pageturner) so transwiki voters may amend their votes accordingly.--Dmcdevit 17:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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

[edit] Second Gentleman

Retrieved from deleted as "neologism". Mikkalai 02:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- All this is good, notability and stuff, but since the term is mentioned in the "First Lady" article, shouldn't this article redirect there, if you don't want its current content, rather than deleted? Mikkalai 08:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I find no occurrence of the term "second gentleman" in First Lady. And the "current content" of this article is a redirection. Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
    - Sorry, this remark was related to the Second Family article, which was also under VfD. Mikkalai 16:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Already a redirect to Second Family - David Gerard 09:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - neologism. SteveW 21:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's a redirect! - 68.72.123.164 01:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please comment on the usage if this term in the First Lady article, as well as "First Gentleman" in Daniel Mulhern and First Lady articles. If the term is used in Wikipedia, it must be explained. You cannot use neologisms in explaining other things. The word "First Gentleman" is not self-evident. Shakespeare used it, too :-) but in a totally different sense. Mikkalai 00:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As I said, First Lady doesn't use this term at all. What you are asking us to comment upon does not in fact exist. First Gentleman is a redirect to First Lady and has been since its own deletion discussion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/First Gentleman). Since (according to Google) there's no occurrence of the term "second gentleman" in Wikipedia at all, the argument that it should be explained because it is used has a fundamental flaw. I note in passing that they are two words, moreover. Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Probably the article itself should explain it, then. WP isn't the place for coining neologisms. Delete. Radiant _* 07:25, Apr 5, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Second Family

Retrieved from deleted as "neologism". Mikkalai 02:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- All this is good, notability and stuff, but since the term is mentioned in the "First Lady" article, shouldn't this article redirect there, if you don't want its current content, rather than deleted? Mikkalai 08:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is this term actually used anywhere? If not, redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 09:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Radiant _* 13:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - neologism. SteveW 21:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on the usage if this term in the First Lady, article. Unexplained neologisms must not be used in articles that explain other things. In the political context it is IMO frivolous. Mikkalai 00:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then the article should explain its meaning, imho. Radiant _* 07:25, Apr 5, 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 (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 00:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sjoukje Drenth Bruintjes

Delete - This text reads as advertising. --Zappaz 20:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete not notable. I am Dutch and I know quite a lot about cults and NRMs and I had never hears of her. Andries 01:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Seconded - David Gerard 09:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is garbage; sounds like this person's looking for free ad space here kamd 23:49, 29 Dec 2004 (PST)
This VFD was found and relisted on VFD by --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion. —Sesel wa 05:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete without better verifiability - David Gerard 09:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - appears to be advertising. SteveW 21:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Wgfinley 20:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. ugen 64 03:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tar babies

I can find no indication of this term being used in the way described by the article. -- Dcfleck 02:34, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Delete agreed. Also, the part about the telephone pole made no sense: A useful indicator of their presence was the numbering of a telephone pole, 1482, on Highway 1, above the beach. Huh? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Change it into a Redirect to tar baby. -- Infrogmation 04:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to "tar baby". —Sesel wa 05:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'Provisional Keep This article needs to be redone many times over. This kind of banded rock is fairly common on the central california coast and they are very pretty when polished. But I've never heard of them refered to as tar babies. CA Highway 1 follows the coast and I'm guessing that Telephone pole 1482 marks a good spot to find them as, California has open acess to beaches. Good place to find this kind of rock is the gravel beaches at Point Lobos state park. Klonimus 06:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ummm, none of this explains why this page should be kept. I think the only germane point is "I've never heard of them refered to as tar babies." -- Dcfleck 23:42, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
Redirect to DROD. Or disambig, but I don't actually find this band very notable as of yet. Radiant_* 13:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Er ... this article is about pebbles, not about a band. I can see how DROD comes into it, though. Well found. Uncle G 16:27, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
keep or redirect please Yuckfoo 01:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No redirect. The local name for a pebble of unidentified geology is not encyclopedic. If the rock itself is significant (and without more data, we can't know), its article should be at its proper name. This article should not be replaced with a redirect to tar baby because in the Br'er Rabbit stories, there is only one Tar Baby, never multiples. Replacing it with a redirect to DROD seems unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 04:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. -Sean Curtin 23:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to tar baby. Article as it stands is a neologism. --InShaneee 16:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with Rossami --Wgfinley 21:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 CDC (talk) 21:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2001 UAE Budget

This substub appears to be about the 2001 United Arab Emirates budget, though I'm not exactly sure. Nothing links here, and I would have speedied it except for the slight chance that perhaps the information in here could be properly merged into a United Arab Emirates economy page somewhere. Bryan 03:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Economy of the United Arab Emirates. —Sesel wa 05:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - David Gerard 09:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge information and Delete Dsmdgold 19:47, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. --Wgfinley 21:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 copyvio. —Korath (Talk) 14:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Louis Cathedral

Delete: It seems to be that someone is trying to use Wikipedia for advertising space. This is not an encyclopedia article. --Rentastrawberry 03:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
This text dump is more or less duplicated at St. Louis Cathedral, New Orleans, which should be cleaned up (it is a building of some note). The "St. Louis Cathedral" article should be made into a disambiguation, as there are other cathedrals of this name in St. Louis, Missouri and in Martinique that I know of, and I wouldn't be suprised that there were others as well. -- Infrogmation 04:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Make into a disambig, as Infrogmation suggests. After googling (26,800 hits on "St. louis cathedral"), I find that it is the oldest continuously active cathedral in the United States, which is fairly significant. Needs heavy cleanup and POV-ectomy; I'm not quite up to doing it right now. Antandrus 04:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, it's a copyright violation. This VfD has been preempted. Postdlf 04:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. Thanks for finding that. Antandrus 04:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 00:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolism of Final Fantasy VIII

Personal essay. Probably a copyvio, but can't be found anywhere. --Slowking Man 05:57, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Would be interesting elsewhere, but it violates no-original-research. jdb ❋ (talk) 06:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find a source for a potential copyvio, so we'll have to delete as original research. Dave the Red 06:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research, gamescruft. Megan1967 07:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree entirely. Delete as original research and gamecruft. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research - David Gerard 09:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. The timeline might be useful in the main article, though, assuming it's accurate. 23skidoo 13:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research, and you can find the timeline on Google. KingTT 14:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - original research. SteveW 21:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Reluctant Delete. Interesting thoughts but not encyclopaedic. More factual information should be merged with Final Fantasy 8. --Fuzzball! 22:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. —Sesel wa 01:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As above --Bucephalus 17:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Waaaaaaaay too much time spent thinking about a FF game. --Asriel86 01:07, Apr 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 merge and redirect. ugen 64 03:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eclipse II

I am nominating this as a test case. I would ordinarily call this an article that should be deleted outright. This ship plays a minor role in a single Star Wars story and is never heard from again. This is fancruft of the tiniest signifigance. However, I am not voting delete because of a new project, the Star Wars wiki that has been recently created. I think this should be transwikied to that location. Indrian 07:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Merge or keep ~~test cases of~~ all canon fancruft. Kappa 07:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I believe Indrian is putting this here to test if it merits deletion by consensus, therefore it is a test case. Your statement that test cases should be kept is therefore illogical unless i am misunderstanding it. If all test cases were kept, nothing would ever be deleted from wikipedia. Halidecyphon 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't put on VFD things you don't want deleted. Merge and redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 09:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiking involves deleting the page from wikipedia and moving to another wiki, and therefore is handled by the VfD page, as far as I know. Please correct me if I am misinformed about this policy.Halidecyphon 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to have failed to grasp my point entirely. This page most certainly should be deleted, and I would vote for that over a keep or merge. However, since an alternative forum exists where this information could be moved, I have put that forward as an alternate solution to losing the knowledge. Indrian 15:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Transwiki. This is non-notable for an encyclopedia but perfectly relavent to the Star Wars Wiki, per Indrian above.Halidecyphon 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 13:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- This is a semi-policy as opoosed to an official policy, and the major thrust is on dealing with characters, though other fictional concepts are also covered. While this approach works for most fiction, the Star Wars universe is so large that creating lists on every minor point would not be feasible: they would simply grow to large and be split back into individual articles. That is the very reason that a Star Wars wiki was created and the very reason why minutae like the Eclipse II belongs there. Indrian 15:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - I never said it was policy, I'm simply using it as reasoning for my vote. Anyway, I think transwikiing to the Star Wars wiki would be appropriate, but since it doesn't list a legal disclaimer anywhere I could find, I'm not sure that that's legally allowed. Radiant_* 17:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    - Fair enough. As I stated, this is a test case. Indrian 19:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Dark Empire to encourage organic growth of that page and discourage re-creation. IMO, the existence or lack thereof of the Star Wars wiki is irrelevant to what good management of the Wikipedia should be. Everything in an encyclopedia is inherently a presentation of information available elsewhere. Shimmin 17:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Fancruft. Merge to Dark Empire until the latter is long enough to warrant breakout articles. —Korath (Talk) 23:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki → Star Wars wiki. This is only of pratical use to hard-core fans, and we now have a place to send it. --Allen3 ^talk 00:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with Star Destroyer, specifically the Eclipse-class part. I think all of the relevant information is there anyhow, so deletion won't matter much. Edit: Crud, I forgot to sign my name.-LtNOWIS 04:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with Star Destroyer as per WP:FICT. I don't really see why there has been another test case, plently of SW and Middle Earth articles have been nominated over the past while and there have been two looks at policy consensus on these types of issues Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Minor_characters and Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items both of which have been coming to the same conclusions. The WP:FICT semi-policy was born out of these and applies AFAIK to all fiction items be they characters, places, concepts, weapons, ships... whatever... -- Lochaber 15:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+ Comment Doesn't transwiki refer to moving articles between Wikimedia projects (m:Transwiki)? Wikicities an external website and why should content on an external website have any bearing on what is here on Wikipedia? since there's not supposed to be any original research on Wikipedia then the chances are that almost everything on Wikipedia is available somewhere else including other websites. Now I know that Wikicities is owned by Wikia and all but it's still seperate. -- Lochaber 15:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The great thing about the Wikipedia is the ability to find entries on any topic, regardless of how trivial it may be. Linking or transwikiing defeats the purpose of having a compendium of all knowledge.--Thresher 17:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that we can just transwiki to a wikicities project (though it would certainly have been more appropriate for the fan to have created it there in the first place). In Wikipedia, I would argue to merge if you can find a good target and delete if not. I do not believe that this should be kept as a stand-alone article. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge. The "Star Wars wiki" is not a Wikimedia project, does not state its copyright license (unless I'm not noticing something), and has ads. Wikicities has no relationship whatsoever with Wikimedia, so this information should stay on Wikimedia, whether it is kept on this page or merged.
- Andrew pmk forgot to sign. —Korath (Talk) 09:20, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. We'll take it. I usually copy these articles under Vfd first, and then it can be decided how to direct people to it from Wikipedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:32, Apr 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 speedy delete. – AB CD 00:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheryl Robbins

del. No such star. the guy got it from some astrology site. The article was speedily deleted, but recreated by the initial author. So I am putting it here. Mikkalai 07:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redeleted as speedy - David Gerard 09:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen 64 04:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silent velcro

Appears to be a prank entry, the only references I can find for silent velcro are that it appeared as a joke in the movie "Garden State". The alleged inventor also seems not to be verifiable - he was also added to November 9 births under 1985 by the same anon contributor who created the silent velcro article, so I strongly suspect a prank. -- Ferkelparade π 07:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

redirect (if nothing better comes). Insert a sentence into the spoiler of the Garden State and redirect there, since the term gets quite a few google hits. Mikkalai 08:26, 4 Apr 2005
Redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 09:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, prank or hoax. Megan1967 09:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the current content is prank, but the word circulates, and I bet some people would like to know what the heck it is. Mikkalai 15:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Failed to substantiate this prank on snopes.com, so I don't think it's a notable hoax. ~~As such, delete and add redirect per D.Gerard.~~ Radiant_* 17:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    - I was speaking about its usage in Garden State movie. Mikkalai 01:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - Oh, I haven't seen that one. Very well, redirect there. Radiant _* 07:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Correct info to reflect joke from Garden State then merge and redirect to velcro. --Fuzzball! 22:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: stub rewritten. --Fuzzball! 22:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Don't redirect. That's a meaningless redirect. Rick K 23:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable/prank. —Sesel wa 01:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep as now cleaned up. The military research bit counts as an urban legend (until verified!). -- RHaworth 15:30, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Keep There was a genuine competition launched by the US military which paid a handsome sum to the inventor of silent velcro. Can't find a reference yet though.
- Comment from IP 12.151.32.25, which was also responsible for a series of hoax articles on the same day. Average Earthman 09:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. --InShaneee 16:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It is not hoax. It is fiction, i.e., it is a real thing in a real work of fiction, namely, the movie. Also, there is something inherently funny in the term, so that it was picked up as a joke. (Or was it vice versa? the creators of the film picked a known joke to add some fun?) Anyway, the term is searchable, it is not a neologism, i.e., lives sufficently long. So the best idea IMO is my proposal above, rather than deleting. Mikkalai 17:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 00:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bert biscoe

Vanity, non-notable. P Ingerson 08:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minor UK politician. Article needs renaming, but keep. - David Gerard 09:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks like vanity to me. Delete unless notability further established. Radiant _* 13:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable; hasn't been elected to anything other than Carrick District Council and Cornwall County Council which according to the standards for inclusion of local politicians is not enough. Dbiv 13:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Fuzzball! 22:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 01:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 13:33, Apr 5, 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. – AB CD 17:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GUWPCT

Non-notable cruft. Delete -- Karada 10:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gtabary 10:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see no problem with it. Keep. Anonymous.
- Anonymous votes are ignored. Chuq 12:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See this thread on Whirlpool. -- Chuq 12:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. SteveW 22:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
for what reason is GUWPCT non notable? It is a part of whirlpool, its in the FAQ, there used to be a website dedicated to it. I feel it is a part of (ever so small) of Whirlpool, given there are users on the site with the Conspircay theory tags, it continues to support theory every so often. When search is enabled on Whirlpool, try GUWPCT and "conspiracy theory" there are numerous threads on this discussion. I Vote to keep it (Original Author) --Twon2is7 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact that you and I both know it was created as a "dare" in the above linked Whirlpool thread .. if you feel it is needed, merge it with Whirlpool (website) -- Chuq 23:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I suggested that the GUWPCT page be created because the GUWPCT relates to the vandalism on the Whirlpool page, not as a 'dare'. GUWPCT is a legitimate part of Whirlpool culture, though admittedly a very minor part of it. Captainmax 04:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge With Whirlpool in a more minimalist form.--Ethan Palmer 23:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Probably the best solution. Captainmax
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 01:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. subject is not notable --Bucephalus 17:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teh Dingo

Message board joke. Non-notable. --Woggly 10:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 11:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

comment: the user who created this page has been vandalising other pages.

User:203.109.254.40, creator of Teh Dingo, has since blanked this section and removed the VfD notice from that page. I've reinstated it, now let's Delete it. SteveW 22:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect. I encountered this after the vfd was removed and (not aware of the vfd) merged the content with Final Fantasy X. A redirect to the latter article could be protected and serve to prevent article recreation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 01:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - IMO this just falls short of the criteria for speedy deletion. Firebug 09:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was also created by a known vandal (see [1] [2]) who then proceeded to remove the VfD tag and attempt to blank the VfD page. Firebug 09:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to wikisource. ugen 64 04:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rise of Nations Units

~~Delete~~ (changed vote to Transwiki, see below) as gamecruft. If it is kept, should be moved to List of units in Rise of nations. Halidecyphon 10:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep well-organized and informative ~~gamescruft~~ so-called "gamescruft". [User:Kappa|Kappa]] 11:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Fyi Kappa, the definition I was using for cruft in "gamescruft" was derived from definitions such as n. Excess; superfluous junk; used esp. of redundant or superseded code. and n. An unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is cruft; the TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attacking it with a broom only produces more. from the Jargon File. Cruft, by definition does not merit keeping. What definition were you using? Halidecyphon 12:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry I didn't (and don't) see the connection between your definition and this article. Also I dislike your use of the words "junk" and "unpleasant" in this context. Kappa 12:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - I would like to apologize for those words, in retrospect my statements above look quite inflammatory. I didn't mean to say the article was poorly written or unpleasant, merely that this is excess, non-notable material. I guess the word gamecruft, invented as far as i can tell soley for wikipedia, does not fall under either of those definitions above, truthfully and is better defined as "excess or non-notable information pertaining to gaming." I stand corrected on that matter.Halidecyphon 17:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Primary source material (since it was taken from the game manual; it barely escapes copyvio). Transwiki to wikisource. Radiant_* 13:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Transwiki. (btw, am i doing this correctly? Please inform on my talk page if I'm not following proper procedure)Halidecyphon 17:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki as per all serious votes above. --InShaneee 21:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please do not test my ability to remain civil. Kappa 22:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Game guides usually get transikied to Wikibooks. I doubt Wikisource wants this. —Korath (Talk) 22:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. Megan1967 06:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 00:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denux UIH

Delete - a concept which they article ties to the company. I am not sure how this can be anything but advertising. gren 13:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising CDC (talk) 21:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. —Sesel wa 01:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge - IceKarma 03:47, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

[edit] ThinkPad X40

~~Delete~~. This is the only article on Wikipedia about a specific model of ThinkPad, and it doesn't tell us anything notable about the model in question. The model doesn't appear to be particularly noteworthy. The only edits to the article in its 14-month history have been to mess with which particular kind of stub it is. Delete the article. IceKarma 13:48, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
- Merge. In hindsight I agree with User:Radiant!. IceKarma 16:14, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
Merge with ThinkPad. Radiant _* 14:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Thinkpad. Megan1967 06:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. ugen 64 04:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic superstitions

POV fork, title is inherently POV. Previous article Economics superstition was deleted via the VfD process, and this appears to be a reincarnation. User:Stirling Newberry has done some good work here, rewriting virtually all of the article text (the original article post, by 216.6.24.58, was almost incomprehensible) and has made it more encyclopedic, but it remains a primarily POV article and the title has inherent POV problems. Should be deleted (again). Firebug 13:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rename as Economic fallacies --Angr/_(comhrá) 14:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment Should have been speedy deleted as a re-creation of Economics_superstition. User:Stirling Newberry does not seem to have rewritten the original article at all, but to have replaced it with an entirely new article. At this point it is not a re-creation so it does require discussion here. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless good source citations are given to counter the impression that this is a personal essay and "original research." Currently, no source citations are given that would indicate general use of this phrase to refer to a well-defined suite of misconceptions. The article says some ideas are held in low regard by "most practicing members of the field," but no such members are named. It says they are "often" described as superstitions but gives no specific examples of such usage. It says they are "fallacies" and "errors," but cites no authority identifying them as such. If this is paraphrased textbook exposition, then it should be sourced ("Economic textbooks enumerate a number of beliefs as 'economic superstitions.' For example, so-and-so's textbooks lists five: the belief that economics is zero-sum, etc. etc. etc.") Dpbsmith (talk) 18:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, reads like original research. Megan1967 06:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Despite Stirling Newberry's efforts, this is still not an encyclopedic article. Most of these "economic superstitions" are not superstitions or even fallacies. They are approximations which are useful in some contexts and badly incorrect in others - the economic equivalent of assuming that the world is flat (which is, for example, one of the first simplifying assumptions in most Physics 101 classes). The choice to highlight these particular misconceptions is problematic. Many people mis-understand many things about economics. The various economics articles explain those topics much better. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I could make a case for turning this into a "list of common economic misconceptions" article with each entry linking to the economics sub-articles answering the question, but I generally don't like "list of" articles. Rossami (talk)

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. – AB CD 00:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ayele Dagne

Unverifiable, and is probably nonsense. Doubtful notability assuming it is true. Xezbeth 15:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- nothing links to that page at all, and the information contained within is far from complete or verifiable. --Martin Osterman 16:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) (forgot to log in)
Delete. I concur, this is nonsense. Sarg 16:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nonsense. SteveW 22:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. —Sesel wa 01:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete either not-notable, or nonsense Dsmdgold 03:05, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 06:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 22:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 500,000

Pointless article, contains a self-reference. Xezbeth 15:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The pointlessness could be debated as it does have significance to the Wikipedia community. If nothing else, I'd keep, rename to 500,000 (number) and then link to 1 E5. --Martin Osterman 16:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete —Wahoofive | Talk 17:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP:WIN has a paragraph on articles on arbitrary numbers. Radiant _* 17:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rename to 500000 (number). I personally think such articles are stupid, but we have articles for other numbers, so why not this one? Remove the self reference. Dave the Red 19:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Er, we don't actually have articles for other numbers, unless there's something special about the number in question (e.g. PI, 42 (number) and 32767 (number). Radiant_* 20:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - Check out this for a list of all the articles on numbers we have. Some of those numbers aren't any more special then 500,000. Dave the Red 21:05, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    - If they're not notable, they also should be deleted. If everyone else jumps off a cliff... Halidecyphon 21:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - Exactly. The existence of other silly extrapolatory articles is no reason for keeping this one. Merged lists such as 1 E5 may have a point. Radiant _* 07:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rename to 500000 (number). Concur with the above. Mgm|^(talk) 20:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not a noteworthy number, plus half of content is self-referential. Dross. -- The Anome 20:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Dave and Mgm. Keep and Rename to 500000 (number).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We have articles for notable numbers. 500,000 clearly fails to establish notability. However, radiant, I couldnt find that paragraph in What Wikipedia is not, has it been removed?Halidecyphon 21:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've checked the history and it was lost in the shuffle. Now added back, under the Crystal Ball section. Radiant _* 07:41, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
keep all numbers less or equal to 1,000,000, we have plenty of space Kappa 23:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. —Sesel wa 01:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Normally I'd say move to 500000 (number) but there's nothing in this article that's special to this number alone, it's just an incomplete list of factors. WP references don't belong in the article namespace either. --bainer 05:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to 500000 (number). Megan1967 06:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's no useful information about the number 500000 (five hundred thousand) that's not obvious from the number itself. As a comment, having a separate article for every number up to the article count would double the number of articles (except for previously existing articles about numbers). — JIP | Talk 07:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is nothing useful here and it has no potential to become useful. --Bucephalus 17:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep this, rename to 500,000 (number). Yuckfoo 01:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "500,000 equals 500 times 1000" is pointless and unencyclopedic content. Unlike PI, this has no potential for expansion. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it would be a bad precedent. Does anyone want there to be an article for every single number? --Asriel86 01:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; no useful content. Compare 72 (number). —Korath (Talk) 14:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pointless --Dr Ingel 01:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, but move to 500,000 (number) as suggested above. I am in agreeance with the fact that other numbers have articles, so why not this one? it is important. -User:NewGuy4
Delete since nobody has added any information which is not obvious from the number itself since the article was nominated. Thue | talk 17:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 01:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mona Lisa (song)

Speculation about a song not yet released. --—Wahoofive | Talk 17:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marginal Keep but rewrite. "Mona Lisa" is a classic song recorded by many artists including Nat King Cole and Elvis Presley. I have no idea if the Spears recording will be of the same song (something tells me it won't be), but the Spears material could be put at the bottom of a proper article about the older song. 23skidoo 17:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I doubt this is a redoing of the track that spent 8 weeks at number 1 in the US in 1950, written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans, and an academy award winner for best song. So, just stick it briefly at the bottom of an article on the classic and notable song. Average Earthman 18:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've added details on the Livingston/Evans track to the article. Average Earthman 18:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I've added articles on Livingston/Evans as a complement to that. -- 8^D ^gab 00:56, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Keep rewrite. Good job, AE. Rick K 00:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- although I believe the singing talents of Britney Spears are the best known argument for an atheistic theory of the cosmos, I can't support deleting articles just because they make reference to that particular perfect talent vacuum. --Christofurio 00:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, rewrite.--BaronLarf 01:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep this classic. --Wetman 15:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. CDC (talk) 21:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catfight

~~This could never become encyclopedic. It's just a slang term that, IMO, Wiktionary doesn't really need either, so I think we should just delete it.~~ RaD Man et al, I stand corrected. Keep. Junkyardprince | Tark 04:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone could perhaps write an article on this--perhaps--but I haven't been convinced of that. If someone writes a decent stub, I'll change my vote, but for now, transwiki. Meelar (talk) 04:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. They take slang terms. Dave the Red 19:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode about catfights? There's no way this doesn't have potential. —RaD Man (talk) 01:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- For whatever its worth, I located the quote from seinfeldscripts.com and added it into the article. Enjoy. —RaD Man (talk) 02:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, maybe it should just be deleted --Avnit 01:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Either transwiki to wiktionary or delete Slac speak up! 05:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC).
Wiktionary. Megan1967 06:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's not looking like wiktionary material any more. Kappa 22:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep please Yuckfoo 01:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Seinfeld reference is irrelevant. What's left is a mere dicdef. Transwiki. Rossami (talk) 05:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Other slang terms have been kept on here, and this one is a lot more notable than those. Xezbeth 12:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. -Sean Curtin 23:16, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep it because it seems to be a technical term in dramaturgy. Michael Hardy 19:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep valid stub now. ALKIVAR™ 08:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've just transwikied it (see Wiktionary:Transwiki:Catfight) so "transwiki" voters may amend their vote accordingly.--Dmcdevit 17:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Hedley 18:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Pretty interestng article. Id like to learn more. -Husnock 04:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is plenty of Info to add. Google for it and see how many results you get and not all of them are porn sites. pamri 16:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep rewrite. – AB CD 22:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24SevenOffice

The page in it's current form is an advertising sub-stub. --S.K. 18:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite. Added more content. If there are no objections I will remove the 'delete advert'. Sleepyhead81. Just to clarify: I work for this company. However, I have no intensions of making this an advertisement, but an informative article as it should be.
Delete, unless someone is willing to re-write it.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 20:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless the hypothetical rewrite establishes notability. Dsmdgold 20:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. —Sesel wa 01:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 01:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzy Brush

Advert Delete Jackliddle 18:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - advert. SteveW 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. —Sesel wa 01:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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) 14:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Union of Revolutionary Workers of Austria - Marxist-Leninist

Alleged Austrian political party, which, however, has no political relevance whatsoever and has no google hits except Wikipedia mirrors. Delete as non-notable. Martg76 19:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep. More detail would be great, but political parties, even minor ones, are in general at least deserving of a stub. Slac speak up! 23:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that if the were a real political party, they would have at least some presence on the web. As is, we can't even verify that they exist--the only Google hits seem to be WP mirrors, AFAICT. Delete--these guys are not notable. Meelar (talk) 23:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe they have google hits under their real name, whatever that is. Kappa
Keep. The article states that it "was a communist group in Austria" (emphasis added). It probably folded before the Internet gained widespread use. In any case, Soman (the creator of this article) is an expert on leftist parties, and I trust that he has his facts straight. —Sesel wa 01:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Since the article names their periodical, confirming the existence of the Vereinigung Revolutionärer Arbeiter Österreichs (Marxisten-Leninisten) is no more difficult than visiting the website of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Austrian National Library) and searching their online catalogue. Perhaps we should have a policy not to translate the names of political parties in article titles, especially when there is no official translation - the result is sometimes outright silly and often misleading and confusing, particularly with all these small fringe parties with very similar names (cf. Life of Brian). / Uppland 04:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The source claiming the existance of a group using this name comes from International Maoism in the Developed World by Robert J. Alexander. If anybody can contradict his claim of the existance of such a group, I would be interested to know. Note that Alexander only mentions the English version of the group's name in his book. --Soman 18:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The question is not so much whether this group exists or ever existed, but whether it is noteable. I don't think the mere fact that it published a journal establishes that. There are lots of groups publishing all sorts of pamphlets. How is/was that group noteable? Did the group ever have any candidates for office? It does not seem so. Martg76 15:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see the point in that argument. Why have an encyclopedia limited to the things all people already know about? Nowhere in the article text is there any reference to the eventual size of the group. That is not to say that it is unimportant. We should see that importance is valued differntly to different people. A political group might have only 2-3 members, but publish theoretical material that influences other groups. A group in one country might be very small, but connected to an international community of political parties and organizations, which in its totality will have some significance. You obviously value the importance, or 'notability', of a political faction in terms of its electoral performance. That shows ignorance to the political history of the radical left, were many groups consiously decided not to participate in any electoral process. --Soman 18:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "Importance" or "notability" is a criterion for whether something or someone should be included in Wikipedia. You are of course right that influence by means of publications can constitute sufficient importance. However, notability should normally be explained in the article (if it is not obvious). In this case, we can only presume notability, which I think is not Wikipedia policy. BTW, I came accross this article in Category:Political parties in Austria, a subcategory of Category:Austrian politics. (Other than that, this page is an orphan). Assuming that this group had influence outside Austria, should it really be listed there, given that its influence on Austrian politics is non-existent? Is/was it a an actual political party rather than just a group of people with political goals? Martg76 20:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - The orphanage-problem of the article ought to be solved once an article for MLPÖ is started. The impact of this group ought to be seen in regards to its relations to other forces in the Austrian left, not Austrian society as a whole. --Soman 08:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. ugen 64 04:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nation of Islam and alleged anti-Semitism

POV fork of Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't "alleged" the proper terminology for a title, especially when there is no consensus for such a thing? Or are you saying there are POV problems with the content inside the alleged version? If Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism's content is good it should be renamed to Nation of Islam and alleged anti-Semitism - zen master T 19:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - As has been pointed out in a number of places, including the wikien-l list, the name doesn't follow Wikipedia naming conventions. We don't have articles about "Alleged Islamophobia" or "Alleged homophobia" etc. Instead, the article title is declarative, and the article itself discusses the pros and cons of the concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - That is an illogical argument, all the examples you cite are generic articles about just the controversial subject specifically, the title to the other article in question is *specifically* stating that the nation of islam is totally anti-Semitic, very different than a generic article on a controversial subject like "homophobia". If someone created an article say George W. Bush and homophobia how long would that title last? How about U.S. Government and Islamophobia? Stating, or even implying in a title, that some organization or somebody is definitely a controversial thing is a very dangerous policy for an encyclopedia. zen master T 21:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - The title makes no claim that NOI is anti-Semitic, it merely presents the discussion. The article itself is where the pros and cons are listed. Please do not assume a title is POV based on your disagreement with the contents of the article itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        
        Alleged is better and more importantly neutral. zen master T 01:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        
        Feel free to continue to assert your POV on the matter; in the meanwhile, I'll stick with Wikipedia policy and convention. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'd agree with you, Zen master, if the view that the NOI is anti-Semitic were a tiny-minority or disreputable one, but it seems to be the mainstream view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- The article is woefully insufficient to claim an overwhelming majority of evidence proves what you are saying it does, if there isn't 100% consensus for something then declaring in a title that someone or some organization is anti-Semitic is very dangerous. Certainly the point that criticisms of the government of Israel are often construed as anti-Semitism is a good one (because then at least *some* of the "rhetoric" is not actually anti-Semitic which is an additional point against your "overwhelming mainstream view" belief). zen master T 01:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to "Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism." —Sesel wa 01:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was a re-direct, but the author insisted on turning it back into a POV fork. I suspect only a deletion will be enough to get the message across. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 06:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. NPOV fork title wise, but content needs POV clean up. zen master T 06:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect "Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism." to Nation of Islam and alleged anti-Semitism. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- You may well right about what the title should be, but title changes should be handled by moving, not copying and pasting, otherwise the history gets messed up. To do that, it is necessary to delete this. - Mustafaa 22:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Versions of this article have been nominated for deletion at least twice before. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nation of Islam anti-semitism and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nation of Islam anti-semitism vote 2. Please review those and the article's Talk page.
As in the prior votes, I again argue that the content of this article presents more evidence about the beliefs and statements of Louis Farrakhan than about the attitudes of the organization, the Nation of Islam. An individual can be anti-semitic. I have trouble with the concept that any large organization can be so easily characterized. The contents of this article (both titles) should be distributed to the articles about the leaders making these statements. The left-over section (that a few other organizations have tarred the NOI with this accusation) should be merged back into the main NOI article. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That is a good idea. zen master T 05:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Jayjg about the term "alleged" in the title. Wikipedia convention has declarative titles, and discusses the pros and cons of concepts in the articles. The declarative version already exists, and this is just a POV fork. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 22:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV fork. --Viriditas | Talk 21:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 22:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chronolatry

Neologism dic def of word not in use--hits from only 5 websites, one of which is a non-compliant Wikipedia mirror. Niteowlneils 19:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete neologism. --InShaneee 21:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. —Sesel wa 01:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Chronolatry, a word supposedly coined . These first 5 words of the article show exactly why it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. It's a word and it's supposedly coined. We need to be able to verify it. Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I took out the phrase "supposedly coined by Jacques Maritain" because of the following quote; "The epistemological chronolâtry is an obsessionnal fixation on the passing of time. Not to be 'trendy' is the She'ol (hell)."—Jacques Maritain. Le Paysan de la Garonne. Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1966. p.26. Also, Le Paysan de la Garonne gets 257 hits at Google, which is not bad for an out-of-print French philosophy book; The English translation, The Peasant of the Garonne: An Old Layman Questions Himself About the Present Time, gets 392 hits. -DialUp 15:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that DialUp's links demonstrate the notability of the book, but not the term. However it seems to me that it is an important concept, Merge with Jacques Maritain Dsmdgold 01:46, Apr 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. – AB CD 01:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Godless Communists

As an anonymous user rightfully noticed on the article's talk page, the article is obviously partisan, barely literate, and, if I may add, in direct violation of NPOV guidelines.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV, unverified. --InShaneee 21:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as part of a crop of recently appearing anti-Communist screeds. Slac speak up! 23:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete title is inherently POV CDC (talk) 23:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ditto. Zscout370 00:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV garbage. —Sesel wa 01:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Shouldn't this be a speedy?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV rant. Megan1967 06:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's a POV rant with an inherently POV title. Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Kind of like Category:Pseudoscience? --Smithfarm
  - Sorry Smithfarm, I had to edit your reply with the <nowiki></nowiki> tags, because the way you originally wrote, this VfD nomination actually ended up in the category "Pseudoscience". Anyway, I think the title is POV too. I'm an atheist myself, and I feel "godless" is a derogatory term towards atheists. Calling the article "Atheistic Communists" would be NPOV. — JIP | Talk 16:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My mistake. I was trying to call attention to the apparent consensus on Category talk:Pseudoscience, about which nothing has been done. I realize this is probably not the place for such advocacy, so I apologize if my comment ruffled any feathers. --Smithfarm
  - Or you could add a colon to it to make it linkable without being active. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pure macarthysm.

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. – AB CD 01:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Project matrix

This seems like patent nonsense to me. I'd say it should be deleted, as it appears to contain no useful information. --AceMyth 20:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a conspiracy theory. Delete unless references are added. Thue | talk 20:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete unreferenced nonsense. —Sesel wa 01:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete I concur with the above-- WB 02:31, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Author uses the word "I", and signed with blogspot link. Delete as unverifiable personal conspiracy theory. Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, of Course. I agree with everyone. José San Martin 00:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unsubstantiated POV.MarkJeremy 03:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 01:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class Organizer

Advertising. Was previously marked as speedy. - Mailer Diablo 20:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete advert. —Sesel wa 01:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ad Dsmdgold 02:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
mixed I changed the article so that it isn't an ad anymore (it now has the same level of content as Microsoft Entourage. However, consider this quote from the company sales site: "If you do not forgot password. If you do not need in password recovery. If you do not have lost password. Then you have our Personal Information Organizer. It software is an easy and powerful password manager software." Bubamara 08:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as NN, vanity and/or ad. Radiant _* 11:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 01:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Purtillology

Hoax? Googling for the relevant terms turns up nothing nothing nothing, except a mention in our own List of religions. "Seafoid" is a real term, but that's because it seems to be an actual Irish name, and "Dragonia" shows up on myriad fantasy sites. DS 21:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete imaginary religion. —Sesel wa 01:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 06:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Sesel and Megan. I can't find any useful google hits, and I never heard of the religion. Delete As a fail safe we could ask a second opinion from our resident Irish expert User:Ludraman. Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, Apr 5, 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. – AB CD 01:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-white

This page is not only poorly composed, but entirely un-needed. The term is self-descriptive, and I can hardly see anyone ever searching wikipedia to find an encyclopedic entry for the term. I propose deletion; however, if it is to be contained on Wikimedia, it belongs on Wiktionary with a super-simplified description, not on Wikipedia. --Trypa Party 21:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. POV, original research, and self-descriptive. Dave the Red 23:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV racismcruft. android↔talk 23:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete racist POV garbage. —Sesel wa 01:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete A shame and a half that this even exits. --FuriousFreddy 01:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete-- WB 02:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 06:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV trash. Template:Racist has also been added to the article. Firebug 09:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - pointless and uninformative The JPS 19:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - rambling original essay on a non-encyclopedic topic. - Mustafaa 22:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - POV, racist, barely literate gobbledegook. Soundguy99 18:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - NPOV it, substantiate its information, clean it up, and it could be of encyclopedic value. Especially if it gave account of the history of the term and the variations of its usage. Morning star 00:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. – AB CD 01:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otsuka Station

Railway stations merit articles, however this "article" constists of a title, a stub message and category links. The only edits to the article since its creation in July 2004 have been changing the generic {{stub}} message to the specific {{rail-stub}} [3], and my nomination for VfD [4]. Thryduulf 21:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>

Expanded slightly. There's also some pictures in the Japanese version but they don't seem to have a copyright status. I also learned that stations are much less interesting to expand than high schools. Kappa 23:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep--now short stub, better than nothing. Meelar (talk) 23:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep rail stations, part of a larger system. --SPUI (talk) 23:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, part of a larger system, likely to be expanded in future. Slac speak up! 03:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep This kind of short entries are needed to keep parent articles Yamanote Line simple. soredewa
keep this railway station Yuckfoo 01:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 to Pius Ncube. —Korath (Talk) 14:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archbishop Pius Ncube

Page already exists at Pius Ncube Wizzy…☎ 21:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Seems a clear case for a redirect. Also would have saved VFD bloat. JYolkowski 21:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Pius Ncube. Megan1967 06:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and inform author of naming policy. Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, Apr 5, 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. – AB CD 01:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shay Har-Noy

This is a vanity page, created by Harnoy Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Shay Har-Noy left a great impact on Rice University and continues to leave an impact on his field of Electrical Engineering by publishing scholarly research. Harnoy 22:07 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. No notable references or sources. Zzyzx11 22:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've heard of him.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] YouthQuake

Non-notable, fails pokemon test. Delete. --Spinboy 22:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Youthquake, the album by Dead Or Alive (band). Dave the Red 23:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- That's not a bad idea, or a disambiguation page since another YouthQuake thing has been added. --Spinboy 00:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and James Williams (Youth Ministry Coordinator) from the same contributor, who has also vandalized several articles. Not notable. Jonathunder 00:46, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
- Hmm, how did you come to the conclusion that User:216.107.103.27 and User:70.150.86.5 are the same person? Kim Bruning 13:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, replace with redirect to the DOA album, and to that album add the single line about the minor comic book character. Radiant _* 07:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Merge? current version of article seems ok. Perhaps merge with James Williams (Youth Ministry Coordinator) ? Kim Bruning 13:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm no fan of this sort of organisation, but it exists, and it seems to be fairly widespread in the US. The James Williams (Youth Ministry Coordinator) article is under VfD (rightly, I think), and one of the comments made by the VfD proposer was that some of the material could be incorporated into an article like this. It may be that this article was created in response to that suggestion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm adding a disambiguation to the Canadian political book Youthquake by Ezra Levant. Samaritan 14:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Even though I'm not a Christian, I know I've heard about this organization before. Needs NPOV cleanup, though. /sɪzlæk˺/ 17:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You should have seen it before... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus; thus, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 14:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seldom Seen Roadhouse

I don't see any evidence that this roadhouse is notable, especially because removing the unencyclopedic, basically unverifiable stuff about "tourists who don't know about the other roadhouse", and the general comment about Australia's sparse population, you're left with.. not much. CDC (talk) 22:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep - the place is listed at www.explore-places.com as an interesting place name. It should be allowed to grow as an Australian geo stub. I acknowledge the current article is very poor but I have updated it. --AYArktos 00:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it is a bit scary that the www.explore-places.com has the text of this apalling quality wikipedia article when you click on their link for the locality.

I think it's generally agreed that pubs and restaurants and such do not belong here (they go in Wikitravel, but you can't transwiki there for legal reasons). I fail to see how this one is any different, so weak delete for now. Radiant _* 07:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is actually not a pub or restaurant but a locality (in the atlas as such) and represented by a petrol station. There are a number of such localities in Australia in isolated spots. This is perhaps notable as being an isolated locality towards the east coast - most such localities are further west.--AYArktos 07:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Wulgulmerang, Victoria. Alphax ^τεχ 15:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but there is no article on Wulgulmerang to merge with and "Seldom Seen Roadhouse" is a locality too and therefore just as valid an article with perhaps slightly more interest because of its unusual name. I note that locally derived web sites such as a Gelantipy outdoor activity and farm experience business refer to the Seldonm Seen, Gelantipy and Wulgulmerang communities as separate when discussing the bushfires of January 30 2003.--AYArktos 00:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

keep real places, AYArktos persuades me that it is one. Kappa 00:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. ugen 64 04:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid Videos

This was listed as speedy because "advertisement". Not really a speedy criteria, so I'm moving it here. No vote from me - with one notable exception, stupid websites aren't really my area of expertise... CDC (talk) 23:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be kept. stupidvideos.com is a funny, goofy website with some popularity, significance and notability. I visited that website, and the funniest clip I was on that website had a fire fart. --TheSamurai 01:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Stupidvideos.com has an alexa rank of 4583 [5]. Not stellar, but just barely enough for me to say that they can have an article. Article needs to be cleaned up to make it less like an ad. Dave the Red 03:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per alexa rank. Kappa 12:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep this please Yuckfoo 01:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The alexa rank is a recent spike. Go back a bit and it was down in the 20,000s to 40,000s. I don't think that's enough. Unless someone can provide other evidence in support, delete. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete website ad. --InShaneee 16:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete website ad. Gmaxwell 20:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Rossami. VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, this website is quite notable and quite funny! If anyone thinks this article should get deleted, we should just put a link for stupidvideos.com in List of comedy websites and redirect as well. --TheSamurai 03:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 (blk-cmp error). – AB CD 22:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simple view of ethics and morals

I propose that we delete or redirect this article. This article was a personal essay by the now-banned Entmoots of Trolls, and it never developed into an actual article. He made this as a parallel to our real article on Ethics because he didn't like the contents of Ethics. However, Wikipedia policy says that we should not have parallel articles on the same subject. Thus, this page also falls into the category of Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Whenever we have two articles on the same topic, we delete one, and redirect to the other. Any important information from the deleted article can be moved to the new article. RK 16:35, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. POV, personal essay. RK 20:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, personal essay. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What they said. brian0918 ™ 20:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, personal essay. Oleg Alexandrov 20:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Personal essay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - personal POV essay. --JimWae 21:10, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Delete — PoV, personal essay (and pretty poor at that). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete If the author is a banned user, then we should not even need to debate it. AFAIK wikipedia policy is to automatically delete anything written by a banned user on sight. Are we sure that the author is that pain-in-the-ass Entmoot of Trolls? If it is, then this should be binned immediately and all his edits, no matter where on no matter what, should be reverted/deleted instantly. FearÉIREANN 22:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV fork, essay. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV fork, original research. Pace User:Jtdirl, I don't think that articles contributed by banned users should be deleted without consideration: there may be useful content hidden in them (here, I'm a little sympathetic to the right-vs-right way of looking at ethical problems). --- Charles Stewart 09:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, personal essay. Note that the banned-user issue doesn't trigger automatic deletion in this case, because it was written before he was banned. --Michael Snow 00:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How was this article allowed to exist for so long? -- Hadal 05:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 4

[edit] Xxx passwords

[edit] Gillette M3 Power

[edit] Eclectic Metal

[edit] Ekaterina Svanidze

[edit] Elliott Gotkine

[edit] European Education Forum

[edit] Silas Finnegan

[edit] Kelsey mcglynn

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for disambiguation

[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean 3

[edit] Home Alone

[edit] Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

[edit] Tyler Smalley

[edit] Michael Parks

[edit] Pageturner

[edit] Second Gentleman

[edit] Second Family

[edit] Sjoukje Drenth Bruintjes

[edit] Tar babies

[edit] 2001 UAE Budget

[edit] St. Louis Cathedral

[edit] Symbolism of Final Fantasy VIII

[edit] Eclipse II

[edit] Cheryl Robbins

[edit] Silent velcro

[edit] Bert biscoe

[edit] GUWPCT

[edit] Teh Dingo

[edit] Rise of Nations Units

[edit] Denux UIH

[edit] ThinkPad X40

[edit] Economic superstitions

[edit] Ayele Dagne

[edit] 500,000

[edit] Mona Lisa (song)

[edit] Catfight

[edit] 24SevenOffice

[edit] Fuzzy Brush

[edit] Union of Revolutionary Workers of Austria - Marxist-Leninist

[edit] Nation of Islam and alleged anti-Semitism

[edit] Chronolatry

[edit] Godless Communists

[edit] Project matrix

[edit] A-Class Organizer

[edit] Purtillology

[edit] Non-white

[edit] Otsuka Station

[edit] Archbishop Pius Ncube

[edit] Shay Har-Noy

[edit] YouthQuake

[edit] Seldom Seen Roadhouse

[edit] Stupid Videos

[edit] Simple view of ethics and morals

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search