Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 7

This is the old name for Template:Cent.

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) 04:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contour plowing

Possibly speediable as being very short with no context. If not, a dicdef. Delete --BM 00:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to plowing or whatever title it's at. Note this there. Farmers, correct me if there's somewhere else this should go. Meelar (talk) 00:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've checked Category:Agriculture but couldn't readily find a page it could be merged into. I suggest putting a an agro-stub template on it and see if it attracts improvement within the coming week, if not: Merge like Meelar said --Hooloovoo 00:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand or Merge to plowing. Gazpacho 01:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand: Contour plowing (or more correctly Contour farming) is one of many soil conservation practices (windbreaks, terracing, cover crops, etc.) recommended by the Natural Resources Conservation Service for agriculture. I suppose they could all be combined into Soil conservation practices but it would be quite a long article. See [1] for a list--although many are also water conservation practices. DialUp 03:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and allow for organic expansion. Very important topic in its own right.--Gene_poole 04:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important term in soil conservation. RickK 04:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic or conventional growth. Klonimus 08:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with agriculture, as it's most useful when in context. Radiant_* 08:52, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've created a soil conservation stub as a definition + examples. Kappa 10:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Important land management concept. Capitalistroadster 11:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for growth or M & R to either soil conservation or tillage. Shimmin 14:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Important topic that needs time to develop.Gorrister 18:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Greatly Expand, or merge into the abovementioned soil conservation page. It is an important agricultural concept. -- Kaszeta 19:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have expanded this page significantly and other people have been working on it before me. Encyclopædia Britannica has an article on this concept albeit it is referred to as contour farming. Capitalistroadster 03:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Important concept. Do not merge. Dsmdgold 11:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Very important agricultural concept. Helps stop dust bowls. Icundell 00:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent expansion. -- 8^D gab 03:24, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's been expanded and doesn't need to be merged. Loopy 04:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. A true example of "organic growth." The original (and rather sparse) entry was: Planting crops around the sides of hills. That's all. - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 12 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 DELETE. Moved some NPOV info to Tom Delay and Helen Giddings articles and deleted. Jinian 13:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Delay arrested Helen Giddings

Delete. A POV article that does not follow naming conventions. If anything, information should be put into article on Tom Delay.--BaronLarf 00:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge between Tom Delay and Helen Giddings after suitable NPOVing. Is there a reason why Helen Giddings currently redirects here? -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 01:46, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
    Because User:Political hack moved it from there. It needs to be moved back. Gazpacho 19:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - What is the point of having a seperate article of this incident when we can just need to put this on his bio page? Helen Giddings should not redirect to that article either. Anonymous Cow 02:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't show the need for a separate article. RickK 04:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 06:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any verifiable and NPOV content to Tom DeLay and Helen Giddings, undo the redirect of Helen Giddings, then delete this mistitled page. Note that, although the Congressman from Texas specializes in delay, there is an uppercase "L" in his surname. Barno 14:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: someone please check the last two entries in the Tom DeLay article. Dates are given as "April 6, 2004" but "2005" may be correct for these. Barno 14:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to either Tom Delay or Helen Giddings. Should not be it's own article.Gorrister 18:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Helen Giddings. P Ingerson 19:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If any of this article's text is to be kept, then by my understanding of the license it can't be deleted. Moving the article and its history back to Helen Giddings (where it originated) would be allowable. Gazpacho 04:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Moving the article back to Helen Giddings would make sense.... if it really talked about her. There's only one offhand reference to Helen Giddings. --BaronLarf 01:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's been eight days since the last vote on this article, and it is getting worse, not better. Ahoerstemeier and TheGrza both tried to fix it and could not. The title makes no sense and the article is horribly POV. Political hack has now apparently set upon making a wikilink for every single word. I will try to clean it up, but have no doubt that it will be put back to its previous state by Political hack. Could a moderator figure out the rough consensus here so we can make this encyclopedic? Cheers. --BaronLarf 02:07, Apr 18, 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) 04:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey Smith (video game designer)

Non-notable, quite possibly vanity. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 12:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable game developer. Kappa 01:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He looks notable, and unless he is not, I do not see reason to delete this article. Oklonia 01:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just barely notable. I guess he stays because he was the main designer for a pretty major PC/Xbox game, Deus Ex: Invisible War. (MobyGames' Entry for proof) Heck, a game designer is pretty much like a movie director. So I guess stay. --Anonymous Cow 02:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain article as it stands doesn't establish notability. Radiant_* 08:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, near the edge of notability, per the Cow's reference above. Barno 14:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand, Clean-up or Delete. A minor notable game developer, but article needs a lot of work.Gorrister 18:21, 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. – ABCD 01:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hosticle

This word is not notable. neologism. Delete Wifki 07:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 01:40, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 06:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above CustardJack
  • Delete.Gorrister 18:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. P Ingerson 19:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter nonsense. Everyone knows that a hosticle is just a popsicle that is being held hostage, which means it is just a dicdef. -- 8^D gab 03:26, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. -- Wmahan. 18:37, 2005 Apr 12 (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) 04:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hot 100 No. 1 Hits of 1952

Delete. The article is a mess. Doesn't link to anything and has no formatting. --Randolph 03:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:50, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Too narrow in scope and not sufficiently notable by itself. Can be merged with a more suitable article if it exists. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 01:42, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Clean up and keep, this is like the articles in of Category:No 1 hits in the United States but needs formatting and wikifying. --iMb~Meow 02:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Conti|✉ 11:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean Up. I will have a go at this myself. Capitalistroadster 11:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Cleanup, and fix 1952 link from List of Number 1 Hits (United States) — RJH 18:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean Up.Gorrister 18:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up and keep. P Ingerson 19:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up as above. 23skidoo 19:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Cleaned up. I have wikified the article and fixed the link.Capitalistroadster 08:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks Roadster. Kappa 23:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Still needs cleanup, but interesting, useful. DDerby 01:25, 12 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 Speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic (requested by author (only contributor)) --cesarb 20:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] House Anaticula

After much thought and sobering, I now realise that this article isn't needed, just like we don't need an article on every little organisation in the world. I guess it counts as vanity. --huwr 22:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page has been created and modified only by User:Huwr, who has also requested its deletion. Since this counts as a consensual delete, it need not undergo the full VfD process. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 01:39, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hwzone

Vanity page. Delete. Andrew pmk 21:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Vanity page. Delete. Lordthees 05:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:52, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity/advertising. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 01:36, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Megan1967 06:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but whenever I look at this, I think it's leet. Meelar (talk) 07:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Gorrister 18:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad, vanity VladMV ٭ talk 14:51, 11 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. – ABCD 01:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IB geek

Delete. This is of dubious encyclopedic value and seems to be a rant against International Baccalaureate. Andrew pmk 00:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- useless and non-notable. It's more like a rant against kids taking an International Baccalaureate program. Zzyzx11 01:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable, and aye, it seems most like a rant. -- Cabhan 02:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. But there is a precedent for a keep with Band geek. However, I voted delete on that one, so this one goes too. --Idont Havaname 02:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changed the page, removed the "rant against the International Baccaulaureate" portion. I was in IB myself and agree with what this person was trying to say.

  • Delete, POV. I am in IB and have experienced no such phenomenon. Wikipedia is not a repository for the sociological anecdotes of amateur high-school psychologists. Jdcooper 19:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Dave the Red (talk) 04:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Take it from the horse's mouth, guys, IB Geeks are non-notable. Many are so non-notable that they sit around voting on VfD all day!Halidecyphon 05:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I am utterly non-notable. Sjakkalle 07:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay. /sɪzlæk˺/ 06:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with same reasoning as Halidecyphon. Ahem. --Jonathan Christensen 06:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am an "IB-Geek" myself and I don't recognize myself at all in this "article's" description. Nonsense. Sjakkalle 07:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. IB-Geekcruft. -- 8^D gab 07:34, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete.Gorrister 18:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another one of the IB kids coming in to chime that this is not-notable. Delete. (The tests are kinda hard, though ;) ) Mike H 12:40, 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 redirect to Hopscotch (movie). – ABCD 01:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isobel von Schonenberg

This page is junk. ;Bear 08:03, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Fogel

Vanity page. Someone else made this page about me, but I am not notable and can't see any justification for a Wikipedia page about me. Hence I am proposing this page for deletion.

  • Delete - not notable Kfogel 01:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This didn't find its way to the main VFD page until now. Weak keep. JYolkowski 01:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does poorly by the google test. If Mr. Fogel says that he is not notable, who am I to disagree with him? Dave the Red (talk) 03:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undecided Google turned up over 9000 hits even when his book was excluded. --Lxw21 05:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have to go with Mr. Fogel concerning his own page.Gorrister 18:26, 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. – ABCD 01:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volley pong

Non-notable game invented and played at one school. The article itself states that there are only 15 people who play this game. The article is mostly a list of the rules. Delete --BM 02:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non notable game. Dave the Red (talk) 03:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform for publicizing local projects. A topic has to achieve widespread non-local notability and then get included in Wikipedia, not the other way around. -- Curps 03:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Volleypongcruft. -- 8^D gab 04:43, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 07:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Gorrister 18:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable game, studentcruft. VladMV ٭ talk 14:57, 11 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. – ABCD 01:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lifestylism

I say delete this neologism. Arkyan 02:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Likewise —Wahoofive | Talk 07:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The tendency to promote a certain lifestyle (e.g. vegetarian, ecologist) Dic def at the very least. Deletism: tendency to delete neologism dic defs. Mgm|(talk) 10:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Gorrister 18:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. wordcruft. Mikkalai 02:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hedley 02:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologicruft. -- 8^D gab 03:29, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Donnchadh O Madagain

The article is a silly stub. But the subject is non-notable. Delete. --BM 02:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable private individual. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity.Gorrister 18:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 14:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, either libel or vanity... Brequinda 10:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn CatCrofts 13:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn -- Wmahan. 18:43, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oxy and the Morons

Seems to be a non-notable band. Google turns up 11 results [2]. I wish you guys luck, though. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This band "hopes to record soon". The article seems premature in light of that. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band vanity. Dave the Red (talk) 03:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity.Gorrister 18:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 15:03, 11 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. – ABCD 01:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The 145's

Tried to search on the topic. Not getting results related to what the person was trying to say. The closest thing was a site with punk rock videos and the videos were from 1998. The person who wrote this suspecting vanity article stated the band was created in summer 2004. The rest of the top 100 results are nothing related to music. All Music Guide doesn't have them so...delete. --Anonymous Cow 02:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic, vanity. --Briangotts 03:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. --Randolph 04:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity.Gorrister 18:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 15:03, 11 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. – ABCD 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Lutz

This appears to be a vanity page with no significant encyclopedic content or value. Bryan 03:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Dave the Red (talk) 04:27, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nateji77 07:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Clearly vanity. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Koch

This appears to be a vanity page, it's about a high school band leader. Bryan 03:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Dave the Red (talk) 04:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nateji77 07:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 12:57, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable.Gorrister 18:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 15:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established - become a real band leader, or win a national high school band championship. Or capture Osama bin Laden... that would do it too. -- 8^D gab 03:31, 2005 Apr 12 (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) 04:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acoustic branding

Marketing/branding terminology, feels like a neologism, google gives 328 hits for the exact phrase.--nixie 03:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, I only get 122 google hits but they seem relevent and not all from the same place. Kappa 10:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a concept I recognized, even from this poorly written article. (e.g. the Intel sound or the "Law and Order" noise, these examples may not make much sense to those outside the USA) Dsmdgold 12:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand.Gorrister 18:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and CleanUp. P Ingerson 19:36, 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. – ABCD 01:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Klaveness Aulin

This article's been tagged as vanity since February without comment or further edits. There's an image too, if this article is to be deleted then the image should go too. It isn't used anywhere else. Bryan 03:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle 07:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article and picture. Vanity. This is most likely a picture of User:TZar, whose only two edits were on Feb. 14, 2005 and both were related to this page. it can all go. Dsmdgold 12:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete everything and remove all traces so that it can not be undeleted. --204.38.191.99 13:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • oops, forgot to log in --Frenchman113 13:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity.Gorrister 18:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Wmahan. 18:48, 2005 Apr 12 (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) 04:26, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar Trade Center

It's a large flea market in the Detroit area, and that's about all there is to say about it. --Carnildo 03:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, "one of the nation's biggest flea markets". Kappa 10:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, over 4 kilogoogles. Shimmin 14:38, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean up.Gorrister 18:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Markets can be notable. P Ingerson 19:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, markets can be notable. The question here is: "Is this market notable?" --Carnildo 19:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It could be. In fact it probably is. OTOH your nomination seems to be implying that all markets are automatically non-notable. e.g. your comment "and that's about all there is to say about it", ignoring the fact that the article already says much more, such as the fact that this "is one of the biggest indoor flea markets in the country" (as Kappa pointed out above). P Ingerson 20:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable.José San Martin 23:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable Flea Market. Lowest prices on fleas in metro detroit area. Klonimus 01:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep based on being a large market in a big city. Capitalistroadster 10:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Commet - there is also a Gibraltar Trade Centre (with -re of course) in London, Ontario (I can't say the name without singing the jingle...it's the ultimate!). Perhaps it's some sort of franchise? (London is relatively close to Detroit, I suppose.) Adam Bishop 23:08, 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. – ABCD 01:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Women and dating

Essay, delete. Gazpacho 03:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Yup. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 03:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can you say original reseach? Dave the Red (talk) 04:23, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • ditto, delete. --Lxw21 04:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nateji77 07:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has potential to be entertaining, but not encyclopedic.Gorrister 19:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, no potential to become encyclopedic. Something about the "more information to be supplied later" makes me wonder if this is a teaser for a commercial operation selling books or videos or pheromone scent. I'm tempted to comment that the article is written as if the author isn't getting any but wants to apply mom's-basement expertise. Barno 19:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It does indeed smell like an advertisement for bottled pheromones. Delete. Uncle G 18:43, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, POV. VladMV ٭ talk 15:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV by definition. Wmahan. 18:48, 2005 Apr 12 (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) 04:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Composite monitor

Two big problems with this article: 1) I've never heard of a monitor that output a video signal, and 2) composite video input is a feature of a monitor (usually considered a minor one), not a type of monitor. --Carnildo 03:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Rhobite 04:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. I changed "output" to "input" as this was an obvious error. I've heard the term "composite monitor" used often before - it refers both to some professional video monitors designed for composite signals, and to some older computer monitors, such as the Commodore 1702 monitor that was often utilized with the Commodore 64 computer. There's enough meat here for a real article, but it will have to be largely rewritten. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Firebug 04:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • When I said outputs the signal, I meant people can see the picture when the monitor is used therefore it is outputted visually rather than to other devices however some composite monitors have output jacks to relay video signals from connected AV devices to connected VCRs. --TheSamurai 22:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Older PCs (in the CGA days) also sometimes used composite monitors. Might want to merge with monitor though, I'll leave that up to Firebug for now. Radiant_* 08:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 09:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with monitor.Gorrister 19:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (as per Firebug, Radiant & Megan) P Ingerson 19:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, monitors with composite or S-video imputs don't have a TV tuner built in. This page has some history of when composite video was implemented on video monitors for home use. So keep it. --TheSamurai 22:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Keep. Good reasoning, Samurai!! - Lucky 6.9 03:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. As a former owner of a Commodore 128, I know a little about composite monitors. — JIP | Talk 18:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I am an officianauto of devices that output a composite video signal and ones that output a channel 3/4 signal. NES 2 and Atari 2600 are mentioned in this article. Please mention the Commodore 128 also. --TheSamurai 02:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article needs major cleanup, though --Zappaz 00:27, 12 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 Merged entire content to pop-up ad, which banner ad directs people looking for popup information to go to, and redirected. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Static image ad

I can't figure out for sure what's being described here. I think it might be the use of banner ads in programs. --Carnildo 03:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to banner ad. I think that's what they mean. No meaningful content to merge. Dave the Red (talk) 04:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is referring to the ability of an advertisement image to remain at the same relative position in a browser window even if the pane is being scrolled. But it is not explained very well. Anyway, merge into banner ad the content worth saving. — RJH 17:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to banner ad. Gorrister 19:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect. P Ingerson 19:43, 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. – ABCD 01:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clara Venice

Vanity/nonnotable, unverifiable--only 9 hits found for "Clara Venice" +Toronto, only a few of which seem to be relevant. Meelar (talk) 03:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Excuse me. I have an uncontrollable need to gouge out my eyes with a hot poker after reading this. Delete as total waste of electrons. - Lucky 6.9 04:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Gouge away. And delete. -- 8^D gab 07:27, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete with hot poker, notability not established, article would need much more substance to be worth wikification. The next point isn't a policy reason, but delete as too deep since the article says her music's philosophy "addresses Rosensweig and ..." Barno 15:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Gorrister 19:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some substantiation or clarification is provided. I've lived in Toronto for 35 years and, never having heard of Clara before or her lavish entertainments, I seriously doubt that she is famous. Her blog casts serious doubt on the claim she's a philosopher, too – she seems to be a student. John FitzGerald 23:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 10:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 15:07, 11 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) 04:34, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peritrope

Google calls BS; 10 hits for the word, and they don't all seem to be related. I think it's a mess of an article on an idiocyncratic non-topic - as the deletion rules so neatly put it. humblefool® 04:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. I got 38 unique hits using google [3], and they all seemed to be about the same the concept mentioned in the article. None of the dictionaries I consulted knew the word, but if it does in fact exist, then we should have an article on it. Dave the Red (talk) 08:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it was good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me. [4] FreplySpang (talk) 12:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - seems to be a definition, would need to be expanded to be encyclopedic.Gorrister 19:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it was good enough for Plato. Kappa 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki dicdefs of idiosyncratic topics that were good enough for Plato but today aren't (except by Barbara H. Smith, Carl Page, and Myles Burnyeat) deemed relevant to the possibility of any totalized overcoming or transcendence in general. Barno 23:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Great, we can't cover Plato now? Kappa 00:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Kappa, I was parodying your commonly used voting style and the way the article was written. Now that I see Plato used this significantly and Theosophists aren't the only ones who use it these days, I can't deny Plato what we give Ashlee Simpson. Barno 00:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I checked Wiktionary; they don't have this word. But I Googled without excluding Wikipedia, so I could compare possible derivative sites that aren't literal mirrors but use WP as their basis. Most of the top-ranked sites (first couple of pages) are legitimate academia, and not just copycat sites replicating a wikihoax or blog postings retelling an urban legend or Everything2 fluff. The concept is discussed in English as a concept by academics-of-philosophy without obvious local-ness. I doubt more than a thousand people worldwide knew the word or idea in any year for three millennia until maybe the last few decades. Did Oxford or Yale students learn this if they weren't philosophy majors? Based on quality (not quantity) of Google results, I'm changing my vote to Keep. Barno 00:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --AYArktos 01:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) (the word is in the Oxford English Dictionary (Compact Edition 1971))
    • But it's not in the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary! (Admittedly, that's because the OSPD only contains words of two to eight letters.) Barno 01:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be important concept in Platonic philosophy. Capitalistroadster 10:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete --I wrote the article, and I vote that it be deleted on the grounds that it is self-refuting: if 'peritrope' were a real thing, more people would have written about it already. Therefore, the writing of the article only serves to demonstrate that the topic needed to be written about. But this is to say that the article should never have been written, because 'peritrope' is far too idiosyncratic a 'non-topic' to ever be written about (if it wasn't, more people would have written about it, and there would have been no need for an article). In short: the article's very existence demonstrates a need for itself, which in turn can only be generated by the obscurity of the topic (its alienated and 'idiosyncratic non-entity' as humblefool put it).
  • Keep, admittedly there is not much scope for expansion, however it is more than a dic def., correctly categorised it could be useful for people interested in philosophy.--nixie 03:42, 12 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. – ABCD 01:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jon senn

  • Delete. Appears to be a vanity article. --Randolph 04:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nateji77 07:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity.Gorrister 19:09, 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. – ABCD 01:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andre Zantonavitch

Non-notable. Only 31 unique Google hits, including postings he's made to things like yahoo groups. There is a Liberal Institute website, but their so-called page on him just says that he's the director, with no further information about him. RickK 04:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable Dsmdgold 12:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Gorrister 19:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of sufficient notability for this "pure liberal" who nonetheless "adheres to the teachings of Ayn Rand", nor of sufficient notability for his institute. Barno 19:29, 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. – ABCD 01:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Labels are for jars

Small charity organization in Lawrence, MA. Does not appear to be notable. 54 google hits. RadicalSubversiv E 05:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an advertisement for a non-profit organisation. — JIP | Talk 07:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertisement.Gorrister 19:11, 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 copyvio. (Remember to list these on WP:CP, please; don't just apply the template.) —Korath (Talk) 04:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lix Tetrax

This article is a verbatim copy from the first two (of 118) google hits, here and here (according to which, this article is a verbatim copy of a scrap of paper someone found in their attic). In addition, it is non-notable. The Demon and Demonology provide good sources of information on demons, and if more information is needed, it should be added to either of these. Halidecyphon 05:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • If you see a copyvio, you can mark it as such, as I have done just now. Dave the Red (talk) 07:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks dave, but I didn't mark this copyvio because I wasn't sure it was. The fact that the material was available on many different sites with no reference on any made me suspect this material was not protected by copyright. The anonymous user could also have been the original author. Either way, it should be deleted for being non-enclopedic. Halidecyphon 11:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • We generally view anything from another site as a copyvio unless there is an explicit release to GFDL. RickK 21:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • Aha, I'll bear that in mind. Sure makes things easy! --Halidecyphon 22:05, 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. Jinian 14:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two-hit wonders in the United States

I've never heard this term used in the music business. It's unencyclopedic. Keeping this article is like keeping an individual article for every type of -phobia and -philia that can be lexically constructed. Eventually, there will be a List of three hit wonders, List of four hit wonders, List of five hit wonders, etc.. It's better to end this now before it gets out of control. Hct 06:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Two Hit Wonders. No vote from me. —Korath (Talk) 06:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article documents a vital part of the music industry. In fact, this list is much more important than the list of one-hit wonders because all the artists have had TWO hits. A1 06:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because someone is ignorant about a world changing topic doesn't mean the topic is "unencyclopedic." B2
  • Keep. This is a no-brainer. In fact, I bet my manhood that this will become a future Featured Article. C3 06:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator is a dingus and this article deserves to be in Wikipedia. E5 06:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am so sick of uninformed people trying to delete things they know nothing about. Two hit wonders is a common term. Just ask anyone on the streets, even the homeless know about two hit wonders. F6 06:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is a place where new and insightful concepts are conveyed to dedicated readers. If you delete every new idea that comes along, then mankind will be forever stuck in a stagnant pool of banality. G7 06:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Today, my teacher talked about two hit wonders and their impact on important historical events. This article belongs on Wikipedia. H8 06:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I know this will come as a shock but A1, B2, C3, E5, F, G7 and H8 are all one-edit wonders, with this VfD entry being their first edit each. --iMb~Meow 06:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, along with Zero-hit wonder and 1½-hit wonder (mercifully this one was already deleted via VFD) —Wahoofive | Talk 06:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - despite the attack of the sockpuppet wonders, I think two-hit wonders is about as valid a topic as one-hit wonders - in my experience, they tend to be one-hit wonders who are able to parlay the fame of that one hit into... a second hit (which is usually a cover of another band's previous hit). I would stand against three- or more hit wonders, because, well, they're really not wonders. -- 8^D gab 07:21, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although it pains me to agree with socks, I think a list of 2 hit wonders could be encylcopedic. I've heard the term before. Dave the Red (talk) 07:34, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Two hit wonders are twice as notable as one hit wonder's. Klonimus 08:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as arbitrary. One-hit wonders are somewhat special, N-hit wonders for N>1 are not. Radiant_* 08:57, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's next, a three hit wonder. Doesnt the wonder go dull after the 2nd hit? Saopaulo1 09:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One-hit wonders is acceptable but anything more than that is crufty, trivial and arbitary. Megan1967 09:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Radiant, Saopaulo1, and Megan1967. --Angr/comhrá 11:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per 8^D --Centauri 12:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep could be useful. Grue 14:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Halidecyphon 15:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Two Hit Wonders" didn't get any "keep" votes, so a US-centric breakout version of the same shouldn't either (and yes, for anyone new, I am a US resident). Niteowlneils 17:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because I think we need this as well as One-hit wonders in the United States. --KelisFan2K5 19:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it goes against my religion to agree with sockpuppets, but googling "Two-hit wonders" +music pulls up over 2000 hits. There should be some clairification of what a "Two-hit wonder is" and it should be a more generic page of just "Two-hit Wonders", not "Two-hit wonders of the United States". Having separate sections per country seems reasonable.Gorrister 22:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given by Saopaulo1. You have to draw the line somewhere. One-Hit Wonders are fine, but the concept of Two-Hit Wonder is simply not notable, IMO. 23skidoo 19:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. USA-centric. I agree with the unisigned comment above that it should be a more generic page of just "Two-hit Wonders", not "Two-hit wonders of the United States". P Ingerson 19:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The concept and social impact of a two hit wonder is equal to the theory of relativity. LAHigh 01:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.
  • Keep. I agree with LAHigh. Two hit wonders are NOTABLE. There are VH1 SPECIALS on two hit wonders and I think there was a Tom Hanks MOVIE about two hit wonders. Face it, two hit wonders are NOTABLE. tsk tsk tsk, some deletionists can be very ignorant CALow 05:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • CALow is a two-edit wonder at this writing, with both edits to this VfD page. --iMb~Meow 05:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Earth is composed of 2 opposite hemispheres (as in plus and minus), that would cancel each out if unified as an entity. --iMb~Meow 05:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I just want to know if 1½-hit wonder was deleted or just never took off? MicahMN | Talk 05:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think if we need to delete Two-hit wonders in the United States, we should delete One-hit wonders in the United States, One-hit wonders in Canada, One-hit wonders in the UK, etc. --KelisFan2K5 12:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with One-hit wonders. IMHO, the term "one-hit wonder" doesn't strictly apply only to artists who had only one singular hit - it's more of a shorthand for "someone who had a brief burst of popularity but was unable to sustain a notable career." A "one-hit wonder" may have actually had more than one song hit the charts. Merging might help prevent a potential avalanche of 3-hit, 4-hit, etc etc etc. Soundguy99 19:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I voted keep, but have no strong objection to a merge and redirect to a section within one-hit wonder (I'm big on redirecting to sections within articles); nor do I have any objection to having an article for all 2-hit wonders (as opposed to just in the U.S.). -- 8^D gab 03:40, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • Delete as a useless neologism and block all socks involved here. --InShaneee 03:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being a two hit wonder has been notable since the creation of music charts. Mmmbopper 03:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Mmmbopper has two edits, both to this VfD entry. --iMb~Meow 05:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with One-hit wonders, concur totally with Soundguy99 in saying that the term "one hit wonder" is synonymous with extremely short lived success followed by relative obscurity. Additionally, the majority of the songs on the list do not even back up their claim of having exactly two songs among the top 40 - most in that list give a rank of ? instead of any useful information. In either case, this seems extremely arbitrary and unencyclopedic, as the term two-hit wonder isn't in common usage, and is probably just an obscure neologism, anyway. Arkyan 05:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Eminently sensible argument - I would have no objections to a merge and redirect. -- 8^D gab 14:04, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyone knows what a one-hit wonder is... seems like the creator made up terms zero-hit and two-hit... who knows that the 'technical' def. is between X and Y on the charts? Feco 07:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real phenomenon that is sweeping the globe. It belongs in Wikipedia, just like the Indian Ocean earthquake and Martha Stewart. Erect Banana 07:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: this is only the users second edit, the first was a remova of the VFD tag from the page in question. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE per concouring comments for delete listed above. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with the delete comments listed above. Never heard of this one! And I hope some admin figures out who created all those one-use accounts just to vandalism this page and pernanetly bans that bozo. --Coolcaesar 07:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


WHY YOU NEED TO VOTE TO KEEP
ATTENTION TWO HIT WONDER FANS AND PROSECUTORS!

I just want to say that Two hit wonders are real!

If you are reading this, you may or may not know that the two hit wonder community's faithful devotion to two hit wonderism is currently under siege from doubters of the two-hit wonder craze. Those of you who frequent the hit wonders section of Wikipedia.com may notice some recent vfds. Click them to see the travesty of Wikipedia. A faithful member of the two hit community by the alias of "KelisFan2K5" has spoken out against prosecutors of the two hit wonder craze.

The problem right now is that there is a group of ignorant two hit wonder opposers who believe that two hit wonderism is "non-sense" and is vandalism and/or a false proclaimation. TWO HIT WONDERS ARE REAL AND IS SWEEPING THE GLOBE. OPEN YOUR EYES.

In order to support all the offended two hit wonder fans out there, and also to back up KelisFan2K5's bold stand, I will lay out my argument in a series of proofs.

Proof #1: It should be quite obvious by now that Two Hit Wonder Forums is a lively and growing fan community. What started out as a simple means of communication between friends of the wonders turned out to be an extensive base and archive of information regarding our mysterious two hitters. Unlike many fan forums, Two Hit Wonder Forums is actually active and is visited/updated almost every day. Also, it should be noted that the rumour mill is still live and kicking despite the paucity in two hit wonderism for a good 9 years or so. Other X-hit wonders that do not have a "mania" named after them do not have fans that generate rumours about the next wonder. Two hit wonders has very faithful fans that generate rumours because they are excited and anxious to see a two hit wonder in their next appearance due to "Two hit wonder fever" (which is a symptom of "Two hit wonder mania"). And plus, isn't the whole point of rumours a sly way for artists to gain popularity and ground before a huge upcoming release of their work? Enough said.

Proof #2: Considering the internet did not become popular until well after the casettes sales ended, it can be concluded that Two hit wonders came into existence after other two hit wonders left the spotlight of the music industry. However, the "VFD" section of the website clearly shows that people still greatly care for two hit wonders even after they left the music spotlight. That is a proof of "Two hit wonder mania" because TWENTY-TWO dedicated fans posted with their deep heartfelt thoughts on two hit wonder's unfortunate ejection from the spotlight. Now, from a worldly perspective, 22 is not a big number at all. But Two Hit Wonder Forums is not a huge and official website and is just a simple and humble fansite dedicated to the topic. Therefore, it would be difficult for it to gain a lot of traffic. However, despite the lack of popularity, TWENTY-TWO people still managed to find that website and post their thoughts (some of which are very touching and serious songs and poems). Now, for those of you who doubt the existence of such a dedicated fanbase, I bid you to consider how you may have seriously offended such devoted people, you sick and inconsiderate "Two hit wonder mania" doubters.

Proof #3: Two hit wonder fansites still exist, despite their disappearance from the mainstream music scene for the clean 9 years. Not to mention that these are not only fansites but there is also a "Page of Worship". "Worship" is normally used to define someone's unconditional praise towards a god-like figure. To simply think that there are fans out there that would out and out worship the "Great Two Hit Wonder" itself, is proof enough that "Two hit wonder mania" is indeed a true phenomenon. I would go as far to say that any "Two hit wonder mania" doubters are intolerant of this religion, belief, and creed. By doubting the exist of "Two hit wonder mania", you also neglect and disacknowledge the existence of a worship medium towards the enigmatic Two Hit Wonder. You know what happens when you become an intolerance extremist? You turn into a nazi. And do you guys want to know what happened to the nazis of Germany? They lost World War II and are regarded as one of the most disrespectful groups in all of history. If you doubt the existence of Two Hit Wonder worshippers, you should very well just say "let's eradicate all visible minorities because they are 'non-sense' and a 'vandalism' to the world".

Proof #4: Dedicated Two Hit Wonder fans have held private Two Hit Wonder statue dedications to commemorate such great and joyous artists. That's right, for the past two years on January 7th, Two Hit Wonder fans have gathered for the annual "Two Hit Wonder Statue Commemoration" to celebrate such an important day in the history of mankind. During these parties, the fans get together and buy a customized statuette that features a two hit wonder's face in order to recognise their greatness.

This easily proves the existence of "Two Hit Wonder mania" because only topics with a "mania" named after them have such dedicated fans that would be obsessed enough to have a statue commemoration for the subject without him/her even knowing. Also, "obsession" is another symptom of "Two Hit wonder mania" and obviously, these fans display that. EB 07:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • User's contributions to date consist of vandalizing the subject article and voting here. --iMb~Meow 19:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same reasons for my keep vote in Zero-hit wonder. A little crufty, but harmless. ZzZ 08:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Abstain. I've worked with this article, but I'm beginning to have doubts on the usefulness of this information. Anyqueen 08:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete. I've changed my mind. It's better to delete this now than to let it grow into like a billion entries. Also, I miss the alternating gray rows that use to be there. Anyqueen 18:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge as per Soundguy99. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Dedlete. The term "Two Hit Wonder" is not widespread, fails the Wikipedia:Google test, and should really just be a footnote in the One-Hit Wonder article if anything. Also, quit it with the socks, it's just lame. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism-cruft. Fire Star 04:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, pointless list. VladMV ٭ talk 15:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic. This is one of the most impressive showings of annoying sockpuppets I've ever seen on VfD. CDC (talk) 16:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Takes the interesting phenomenon of the One-hit wonder -- the single fluke, the brief moment in the spotlight -- and makes something meaningless instead. --Calton | Talk 00:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have heard of the phrase before, but the phrase is not talked about much (except for a late night special on VH1). However, if these sock puppets really want something mentioned, I am sure there is a page of pop music terms somewhere, or at least just a mention somewhere else. Zscout370 01:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; as much as it pains me to agree with a vandal like that, that looks like a useful list. DDerby 01:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fight pointless list proliferation! -- Dcfleck 12:38, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • '''''''EXTREME KEEP'''''''''''!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 205.217.105.2 17:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • '''''''EXTREME DELETE'''''''''''!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Carolaman
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Xu

Vanity. Zzyzx11 06:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Rhobite 06:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Xucruft. -- 8^D gab 20:57, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Wmahan. 18:59, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monster initials

The Topps cards, whatever they are, might be notable, but this is trivial cardcruft. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no useful information/not encyclopedic--Lxw21 07:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is unreadable rubbish, and certainly doesn't give any information that is remotely useful separate from the game (and may well be unusable if you know the game as well). Average Earthman 08:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Initialcruft. -- 8^D gab 10:09, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unreadable nonsense --Bucephalus 11:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Totally unreadable. P Ingerson 19:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely nonsense. --Redattack34 02:11, 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 REDIRECT. Done. Jinian 15:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HaraHara attack

This article is about a 'move' in a game that doesn't even have its own article in Wikipedia. If the game article existed I would recommend merging. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Fancruft. ugen64 06:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 07:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, specific to one game, at most only deserves a brief mention in the Super (fighting games) article, which it already has. The actual specifics of how they are carried out belong in a game guide, not an encyclopedia. Average Earthman 08:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It's not about 'a' move, it's about a whole class of moves. Kappa 10:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. --Bucephalus 11:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with redirect to Super (fighting games) which already contains the relevant info. Radiant_* 12:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Super (fighting games) as per Radiant. Dave the Red (talk) 18:08, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the game. Mgm|(talk) 18:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect gamecruft about a whole class of moves. Wikipedia is not a game guide. No non-duplicate content to merge. Barno 19:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above comments. P Ingerson 19:56, 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. – ABCD 01:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Saipan Incident

The first half is copied from Saipan and the second half seems to be about a non-event. SWAdair | Talk 06:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The incoherent bit at the end of the article appears to be a reference to the Republic or Ireland's national football team having a training camp in Saipan before the last football World Cup. Perhaps too much Guinness before writing the article? Particularly since they then don't bother mentioning that team captain Roy Keane was so incensed by the amateuristic state of the training camp it resulted in a very public spat with manager Mick McCarthy and Keane leaving the team. This is mentioned in Keane's article, it could possibly be mentioned in the main Republic of Ireland football team article perhaps, but the term 'Saipan Incident' does not appear to have been widely used, and is therefore not appropriate. Average Earthman 09:24, 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. – ABCD 01:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Freehold

advert. Nateji77 07:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, promo. Megan1967 07:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article appears promotional, not convinced of influence/popularity of website (too obscure for Alexa to hold any data). Average Earthman 09:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Robinoke 15:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The article is NOT promotional, I took the time to add TWO additional hosts, how can I be promoting TWO competing hosts??? Furthermore I contend that if this article is 'promotional' and should be deleted then so should the Keenspace and Keenspot articles on which it was bloody well based!! And yes I know my comment isn't in your precious format but at this point, having taken the time to add TWO new entries, AND justify BOTH of them I'm very much sick of this entire process. You want to pretend as though Keenspace is the only webcomic host in the world, FINE, fact is there are TWO more that I know of (and if there had been SEVENTEEN that I knew about I would have bloody well added SEVENTEEN!) and I'm trying to convey that reality into the article on webcomics, it is ridiculous for anyone to want to edit that out. As I very clearly stated in my prior explanation, these are ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, conveying a clear and accurate picture of reality, which is what Wiki in theory is supposed to be doing, requires providing information on ALL the options, not singling out ONE provider, THAT is promotional favoritism of the worst kind, in fact if deletion on the articles I added procedes I'd have to question how much Keen payed to have exclusivity on Wiki's perception of reality!

Unsigned comment by 84.9.90.69 (talk · contributions)
  • Keep He has a point but it could be altered to sound less like an ad: "full featured free hosting service for the creative internet community". Robinoke 10:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN webiste per lack of Alexa rank. Radiant_* 12:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now etu Although this entry is of no interest to me, I have to say that the biggest objection to it is the tone. It sounds like an ad. It should be rewritten from a more objective tone. It needs some sprucing up in the comparison/contrast area, too. Right now, it is too promotional. It needs to be expanded wrt how it compares to other services, who its competitors are, etc. Either that, or it could be subsumed into another entry about webcomics, along with the Keen site entries. 2005.04.08
    Unsigned comment by Urbansky (talk · contributions)
  • Delete. A free web hosting service that started advertising in 2005--apparently Wikipedia is part of their campaign. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like a thinly veiled advert. Not every internet site deserves an article. --NormanEinstein 01:23, 12 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. – ABCD 01:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Roberts

vanity? patent nonsense? one a those. Nateji77 07:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, possible personal attack. Megan1967 07:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity or hoax. Could go to BJAODN. Dave the Red (talk) 08:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has got to be a personal attack. Average Earthman 09:07, 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. Jinian 15:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Farrell

A research staff member. Article fails to establish notability. Sjakkalle 07:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless expanded. While I tend to complain that Wikipedia demands far higher levels of achievement for scientists than for actors or sportspeople (where merely being employed as one gives you a good chance of an article), I'd say that the article needs to actually say what the scientist has done to contribute. This merely states he is employed. Average Earthman 09:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — The Thomas J. Watson Research Center page is barely a stub, so this doesn't even appear to be merge-worthy. — RJH 17:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Earthman's first comment DDerby 10:02, 12 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. – ABCD 01:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The pisces evolution

This page appears to be a vanity/promo site for a one-man band. Its album has not yet been released.--Lxw21 07:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That last vote was by Sanmartin, either credit to that user or ignore it. Megan1967 05:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - The album is not being clearly sold here. The purpose of the music is to attract the attention of Dysthymia, and to extend it onto finding more information on that. The music from the album is in direct experience with a serious social problem such as depression. How can you make an assumption that because it is being told in a diffrent way, than say text books or Dr. Phil, that it is not legit? The problem with "censorship" to the articles is the lack information that is given to anyone who chooses to find it. I understand that thier are people who purposefully exploit themselves, but that is not what's being done. No money is being involved here, and there are links that clearly lead to further information on the disease. I do not believe this page should be deleted.
    • Anonymous votes dont count. If the purpose of the article is to attract attention rather than makes claims to notability, then it also should be deleted on the grounds of "promotion/advertisment" regardless if its not for profit. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Megan1967 05:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN (per band inclusion guideline). Radiant_* 09:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- Karada 09:38, 11 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. – ABCD 01:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Perez

  • Vanity. Sounds like a really bad resume. Saopaulo1 08:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Article tells nothing special, I know about hundreds of people who got their degree and travelled. Delete resume. Mgm|(talk) 10:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ringnut

Ringnut - very little evidence on Google for the assertion made in this near dicdef entry. --Tagishsimon (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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

This is just a cut-and-paste of three paragraphs from British Raj. Delete or redirect to that article. --194.73.130.132 10:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I will rewrite this. Important part of Indian history in the 20th century. Possibly should be renamed as the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. Capitalistroadster 10:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Have now rewritten the article. Now support keeping the current name as it seems to be widely used for the reforms.Capitalistroadster 07:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Excellent work. Thanks! --194.73.130.132 15:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The name of the article is all right - it is widely known by this precise name in the Indian history under the British Raj. The article is comprehensive and should continue.--Bhadani 18:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article looks great after Capitalistroadster's rewrite. --NormanEinstein 01:43, 12 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. – ABCD 01:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gidrophonick

I wish the article would say what "Gidrophonick" means, since I have never heard of that word. Nor apparently has Google. Neologism? Testpage? Delete. Sjakkalle 10:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This is a copy of "Referrer log spamming" from our page spamdexing. The external link seems to be an attempt to do some spamdexing courtesy of wikipedia users. I think there must be a speedy criterion for this, otherwise just delete it. Kappa 11:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete! Sockster 14:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote by a self described sock-puppet. Must sadly be disregarded. Sjakkalle 14:21, 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Waddey

Under 50 hits, excluding wikipedia, clones and other traffic-magnets using wikipedia keywords. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 11:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete! Sockster 14:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity? Non-notable. Gamaliel 14:16, 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. – ABCD 23:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brock Affair

Delete this one sentence sub-stub, not because of its sub-stubbiness, but because the event (which I had to research myself since the info isn't in the artice) concerns a minor local incident of no greater significance. Joyous 11:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, perhaps transwiki to wikinews Dsmdgold 13:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as now written. If expanded, transwiki to Wikinews. RickK 21:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 15:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Seal

A teenager who claims to have various titles and an "Honourary [sic] Doctorate in Divinity". "Chief Executive of the Dexillon Corporation", "Dexillon" having the curious distinction of scoring no hits whatever at Google, other than this site, which is actually just a vanity URL for this one, and which is merely a set of links elsewhere. "Further information regarding His Lordship can be obtained by visiting" some other vanity URL, whose reality is this freebie. We go there and learn (among the cod-aristocratic mumbo-jumbo) that he's a student.

I hardly need add that Google doesn't show much for "Craig Seal", either.

This is vanity raised to a stunning new level, folks. -- Hoary 11:43, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC) PS, delete. PPS and delete the redirect page Lord Seal too.

  • Delete, vanity. Xezbeth 12:34, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, delusional fantasy. User, having created a username of Dexillon, appears to be attempting to sabotage the VfD process. Average Earthman 13:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, almost remarkable level of pointless sophomoric delusional fantasy. Barno 15:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, anyone? Radiant_* 21:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Nothing wrong with the references, the order has been recognised as one of a definable nature as for its titles to appear in holders passports in the UK. We would also point out that although the church of seven planes may give ordinations freely, to our knowledge none of the related persons have any connections with the church except membership of the corresponding order. We would also point out that the church in question has been recognised and has legal status as a church in the united states, therefore, regardless of personal beliefs this is a legal church and a legal order. We therefore vote to keep. Dexillon 00:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "We", Dexillon? How many of you are there, and why doesn't each have his or her own username? Incidentally, I note that all your "contributions" to WP have been related to the seeming nobodies Seal and Hudson, and the ludicrous "Order" of which they claim membership. -- Hoary 01:38, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Funny, but still nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 15:21, 11 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 which has now been done. Mgm|(talk) 11:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Epidermal-derived growth factor

This was tagged for speedy deletion by an anon. I can't see what's wrong with it, but maybe the anon knows more about it than me. 53 Google hits No vote. Kappa 11:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep provided it's wikified. — JIP | Talk 11:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I can see what's wrong with it, and that is that it's totally incomprehensible to most people :) but since that is no grounds for deletion, keep and ask some biologist to clarify it. Radiant_* 14:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Halidecyphon 15:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. Scientific concepts are almost always encyclopedic. Dave the Red (talk) 18:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as biochemist I've come across this and I can assure you the concept is real. I'd be happy to wikify this later. Just post it to my Cleanup Taskforce Desk to make sure I don't forget :) Mgm|(talk) 19:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Epidermal growth factor is the same thing and the correct name, merge and redirect there--nixie 00:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Epidermal growth factor. Concur with Peta. Megan1967 02:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or even replace Epidermal growth factor as the latter is poorly written. DDerby 01:49, 12 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. Jinian 15:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Sir John Franklin

Page about some cod-aristocratic order, which has a website, "http://www.order-of-sir-franklin.tk" that's actually a vanity front for ojf.enacre.net, a link farm. (There seems to be some relationship with Craig Seal, too.) Delete. -- Hoary 12:40, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

  • Delete, fictional vanity. Note that Dexillon is undoubtedly the same chap, Average Earthman 13:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, make-believe. Xezbeth 13:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity award. Megan1967 02:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Nothing wrong with the references, the order has been recognised as one of a definable nature as for its titles to appear in holders passports in the UK. We would also point out that although the church of seven planes may give ordinations freely, to our knowledge none of the related persons have any connections with the church except membership of the corresponding order. We would also point out that the church in question has been recognised and has legal status as a church in the united states, therefore, regardless of personal beliefs this is a legal church and a legal order. We therefore vote to keep. Dexillon 00:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Dexillon, why "we"? I think you mean I, first person singular. If somebody else would like to chime in, let him (or her). Incidentally, I note that all your "contributions" to WP have been related to this "order" and two of the people (the only two?) who claim membership of it. -- Hoary 01:34, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanitas. Radiant_* 09:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Hudson

Like Craig Seal, somebody related to the probably non-existent and anyway utterly unnotable "Dexillon" corporation, and a bigwig in the fictional Order of Sir John Franklin. Yawn. Delete. -- Hoary 12:47, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

  • PS and delete the redirect Lord Hudson, too. -- Hoary 12:50, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • PPS the author of the article removed the VfD notice; I reinstated it and warned him about vandalism. -- Hoary 13:04, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete, more tedious fictional nonsense. Average Earthman 13:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not sure. The order appears to be connected with something called The Church of the Seven Planes. — RJH 17:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The above-linked Church of the Seven Planes website offers ordination to anyone who e-mails them such a request. Not sure what Seal/Hudson/Franklin/Dexillon's connection is, but probably one of them got himself ordained minister in a non-influential everyone's-a-priest bogus "religion". Delete this whole group of hoax postings including the "Lord So-and-so" redirects. Barno 19:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dsmdgold 22:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Nothing wrong with the references, the order has been recognised as one of a definable nature as for its titles to appear in holders passports in the UK. We would also point out that although the church of seven planes may give ordinations freely, to our knowledge none of the related persons have any connections with the church except membership of the corresponding order. We would also point out that the church in question has been recognised and has legal status as a church in the united states, therefore, regardless of personal beliefs this is a legal church and a legal order. We therefore vote to keep. Dexillon 00:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "We", Dexillon? How many of you are there, and why doesn't each have his or her own username? Incidentally, I note that all your "contributions" to WP have been related to the seeming nobodies Seal and Hudson, and the ludicrous "Order" of which they claim membership. -- Hoary 01:39, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Delete, more vanitas. Radiant_* 09:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 23:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 765,000 volt power transmission line

Delete. Not encylopediac as written, not even accurate, and could easily be replaced with a paragraph in the AC transmission article. No-one will search for this title. Nothing links to it. --Wtshymanski 03:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete 765,000 volt power transmission line, and merge contents with electric power transmission. Nothing links to this article (other than the link I just made and any others in VfD process) so nothing to redirect. Gene Nygaard 03:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete as per Gene Nygaard Dsmdgold 12:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it even contradicts itself, as a 1.2 MV line would carry a higher voltage, as such 765kV wouldn't be the highest voltage line. No need to merge this imo, it would lower the standard of the other article. --Hooloovoo 15:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This info is not worth merging. Dave the Red (talk) 17:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect; you have to keep as a redirect after merging for GFDL compliance. --SPUI (talk) 04:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Probably simplest to just delete, then. The first sentence is wrong and is contradicted by the last sentence. --Wtshymanski 22:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete no content worth merging and redirecting; all key useful content is already there in Electric power transmission Mozzerati 18:42, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing useful to merge, no redirect necessary. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect unless we want redirects of the type 766,000 volt power transmission lines. Sjakkalle 13:23, 12 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. – ABCD 01:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Saponara

Pure vanity. Xezbeth 13:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 16:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Dhanakorn
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:34, 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. – ABCD 01:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turbogooner

Neologism; 3 google hits. Xezbeth 13:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow, talk about a niche. Delete. Qwghlm 17:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Really! What's next? "soaptrekkies"? Delete this neologism. The few people that fit this description aren't notable anyway. Mgm|(talk) 19:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Snagging the slang for another project. :) Delete. — RJH 15:50, 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 merge. Radio KoL was merged with Kingdom of Loathing and this into that. Jinian 12:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ZachsMind

Non-notable, vanity/rkol-cruft. Delete. Grue 14:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Radio KoL, then delete. — RJH 17:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all Radio KoL DJ/writer/show articles into parent article, and break out a section(s) for that, then weak vote to delete rather than having redirects. Fans will eventually create dozens of stub articles (and some good ones probably) for all the DJs if that becomes WP's policy. While I think Radio KoL is pioneering enough that it's about as noteworthy as gamecruft or Webradiocruft can get, it hasn't gotten very much attention outside the Kingdom of Loathing community. So it's barely making my bar of keep-worthiness. Soon there will be dozens of MMORPGs trying to do this, with dozens of DJs/live-bloggers/live-adventurers/et cetera on each. For these 144's of hosts, some notability guidelines must be used. This is still game-centered content, so I think guidelines should be more like Fiction semi-policy than those used for entertainers in mass-market industries (for instance, signed a recording contract with a major label, completed one tour). Online hosts of ANY sort, in-game or not, need (in my judgment) to have widely established some verifiable noteworthiness individually to have their own article, rather than a short description in a section of the Radio KoL article. Barno 01:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the station article also needs clean-up because its a list of forum names right now, that made be VfD worthy too. Hedley 02:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Barno, merge the lot. And individual forum names aren't generally notable, but there's no harm in redirecting them to the main article. Radiant_* 12:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If the folk from my radio station aren't good enough to be listed anywhere here, this guy certainly isn't. Chris 00:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • None of these are inherently notable. Merge all, or delete all if Radio KoL gets deleted. -Sean Curtin 22:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. DaCyclops 14:41, 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 delete. – ABCD 23:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lehks

Non-notable, vanity/rkol-cruft. Delete. Grue 14:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Radio KoL page, then delete. — RJH 17:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See my vote on ZachsMind above. Barno 01:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hedley 01:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a webradio programme guide. Chris 01:05, 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 The result of this VfD was Keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paradise.net

Looks like an advert to me, but I'm not sure. Robinoke 15:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Alexa rank of 2,350,102. Advert. Dave the Red (talk) 17:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are entries for American ISPs, and this is New Zealand's second largest. I don't see a reason to delete it. You couldn't really call it an advert either, but it does need to be cleaned up a bit. Loopy 19:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds fair. I didn't know all the American ISPs had articles. Robinoke 17:03, 12 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Magic Solutions

Seemingly non-notable software startup. Not publically held, no entries on Google News. Shimmin 15:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Dhanakorn
  • Keep. The company was famous in Finland in the late 1990s for its innovativity and fast growth. It still exists in the USA and is doing rather well. — JIP | Talk 06:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, 550 googles for a software company is below my bar. Radiant_* 12:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you google for both "More Magic Software" and "More Magic Solutions"? The company was already very active under its former name. — JIP | Talk 12:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I get only 139 hits for "More Magic Software". I fail to see anything about the company that justifies a Wikipedia entry. On the other hand, it's not as if its presence hurts Wikipedia much, so I'm not actually voting. Gareth McCaughan 14:58, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Branson

  • Delete as not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry, --SqueakBox 16:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — Marginally notable activist. — RJH 17:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree withSqueakBox --Dhanakorn
  • Seems notable enough. So I'll vote keep. I need more evidence if I'm going to change that vote. (I did remove the unencyclopedic contact details, though.) Mgm|(talk) 19:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, marginally notable, though some non-notable data (such as "traveled with" someone else) appear. Can someone show evidence that Alert Sheet Publications or Granada Forum are or were significant enough for articles? If so, this article should probably be kept (and wikified) based on his heading these activities and writing the bill that became the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. Barno 19:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What law? It's a blue-sky proposal. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP I put this page on Wikipedia and I am being STALKED and HARASSED by SqueakBox. She has repeatedly hijacked pages, violated the 3RR, and is now showing herself to be a Wikipedia Cyber-Stalker by going to each page I submit and vandalizing it or worse. Her claims are bogus and self serving. ==> Agwiii 01:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I is not a women, nor do or hijack pages nor do I break the 3RR rule, --SqueakBox 01:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    No coment is necessary. You are a Cyber Stalker and I have asked the PTB to block your stalking. ==> Agwiii 01:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Because you have no evidence, --SqueakBox 02:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    The stupefying eloquence of your statement that "I is not a woman" speaks for itself, SqueakBox. STOP CYBER-STALKING ME! Stop dog-posting me. Just STOP and go away! ==> Agwiii 02:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I've struck-out this 'keep' because user has voted 'delete' below. — Davenbelle 08:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a famous entrepreneur. Oh, Ron Branson, sorry. Delete Chris 01:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article-creator's action in removing the VfD notice from the page (under cover of an edit marked 'minor') has swung my vote. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    More misinformation, for I certainly DID NOT REMOVE the Vfd. Agwiii 17:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    [5]. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Correction, there was no intention to delete the Vfd, which was place here in retaliation by a nameless one. Mel, you know I make a very clear statement to that effect, yet you still post your link. What's your point, confromtation? Agwiii 21:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    In case you didn't notice, he added that link before you noticed you did delete the VfD notice by mistake and apologized. --cesarb 21:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 20:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. "Alert Sheet Publications" gets 4 unique Google hits. RickK 21:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like one of the 'Men of Achievement, 1974' sketches from Fist of Fun.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cannot be notable because it was not created by a member of the clique. Agwiii 21:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    I think that you mean the Cabal. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    No, I used the correct word. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." (Humpty Dumpty. Through The Looking Glass. Carroll, L. London, 1872) Signed, Agwiii 22:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    But not the actual meaning, of course. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete – not notable. — Davenbelle 08:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor-league activist. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not sufficently notable. -- Dcfleck 12:48, 2005 Apr 12 (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. Radio KoL merged with Kingdom of Loathing and this into that. Jinian 13:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faustus Pringle

Webcast-only radio DJ, for a station with an alexa rank of 1,023,586--station probably isn't even notable (40 displayed hits for "Radio KoL" shoutcast), let alone articles on each DJ. Only 18 displayed hits for "Faustus Pringle". Niteowlneils 17:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Radio KoL. I could explain in many ways, why the station is notable, I'd just say it's THE ONLY radiostation based around a MMORPG, not even Everquest has something similar. It works 24 hours a day, all djs are people who play the game and they waste up to 4 hours a day on the radio. A truly notable radiostation. I agree that all djs should be merged into one article, I dunno who got the "bright" idea to start a separate article on them. Grue 17:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KoL has a radio now? Wow, that's rich. Okay, concur with the merge. Radiant_* 21:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the whole lot started during a show by Prima Vera Angelhair, at which someone in chat pointed out the KoL Wikipedia page. Then, that lead to the Radio KoL Page. Then a Prima Vera Angelhair article appeared. Freshly created. I think it was created because of talking about Wikipedia. Things Snowballed.... Reading this, I think it may be a good idea to Merge all the DJ information onto the Radio KoL page. DaCyclops 23:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See my vote on ZachsMind above. Barno 01:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity/promo. Megan1967 02:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Get rid of this, all the other DJ articles (linked on Radio KoL) too. I'm more notable than this person. Hedley 17:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm more notable than this person, because I'm a DJ on a real radio station. OK, so it was a student station with an RSL, but still it was live on FM Chris 00:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you bitter that no one has created an article about you? I don't see why "real" station is more notable than webcaster. People from all around the world are enjoying Radio KoL, and no one has ever heard about FM radiostation you worked on. Grue 05:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:NPA. I'm making valid comparison. Individual DJs with some 100 listeners are not notable, compared with DJs with millions of listeners. If it makes a difference, no one has ever heard about the station I work on, other than maybe some 200,000 people in the local area. 131.251.0.8 15:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. This doesn't need its own article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:14, 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 merge. Radio KoL merged to Kingdom of Loathing and this into that. Jinian 12:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jezebelle

Webcast-only radio DJ, for a station with an alexa rank of 1,023,586--station probably isn't even notable (40 displayed hits for "Radio KoL" shoutcast), let alone articles on each DJ. Only 20 displayed hits for Jezebelle kol. Niteowlneils 17:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Radio KoL. I could explain in many ways, why the station is notable, I'd just say it's THE ONLY radiostation based around a MMORPG, not even Everquest has something similar. It works 24 hours a day, all djs are people who play the game and they waste up to 4 hours a day on the radio. A truly notable radiostation. I agree that all djs should be merged into one article, I dunno who got the "bright" idea to start a separate article on them. Grue 17:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Also try Googling radio "kingdom of loathing" for some 5000 hits. Grue 17:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the whole lot started during a show by Prima Vera Angelhair, at which someone in chat pointed out the KoL Wikipedia page. Then, that lead to the Radio KoL Page. Then a Prima Vera Angelhair article appeared. Freshly created. I think it was created because of talking about Wikipedia. Things Snowballed.... Reading this, I think it may be a good idea to Merge all the DJ information onto the Radio KoL page. DaCyclops 23:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See my vote on ZachsMind above. Don't search J.'s name without +"KoL" or +"Radio KoL", or you'll see someone who's pierced. Barno 01:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A delete vote from someone who's been on local FM radio should count nicely. Chris 00:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge; this doesn't need it's own article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:15, 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 merge. Radio KoL was merged with Kingdom of Loathing and this into that. Jinian 12:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prima Vera Angelhair

Webcast-only radio DJ, for a station with an alexa rank of 1,023,586--station probably isn't even notable (40 displayed hits for "Radio KoL" shoutcast), let alone articles on each DJ. Only 11 displayed hits for "Prima Vera Angelhair". Niteowlneils 17:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Radio KoL. I could explain in many ways, why the station is notable, I'd just say it's THE ONLY radiostation based around a MMORPG, not even Everquest has something similar. It works 24 hours a day, all djs are people who play the game and they waste up to 4 hours a day on the radio. A truly notable radiostation. I agree that all djs should be merged into one article, I dunno who got the "bright" idea to start a separate article on them. Grue 17:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the whole lot started during a show by Prima Vera Angelhair, at which someone in chat pointed out the KoL Wikipedia page. Then, that lead to the Radio KoL Page. Then a Prima Vera Angelhair article appeared. Freshly created. I think it was created because of talking about Wikipedia. Things Snowballed.... Reading this, I think it may be a good idea to Merge all the DJ information onto the Radio KoL page. DaCyclops 23:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even the station is questionable as to it's having an article. If internet radio presenters are notable, i'll start on my article. Hedley 16:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a real (i.e. off-Web) DJ, and I don't have an article. Chris 00:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • But you didn't interview Gene Ray, did you? Grue 05:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • True, I didn't. Will Jane Davidson do instead? 131.251.0.8 15:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) (This is me forgetting to sign in first. Chris 15:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep I don't see why you want to delete this. Phoenix Hacker
  • Delete or merge; this doesn't need its own article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to pasta. Mmmmmmm... pasta! -- 8^D gab 18:48, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AXL's TFC

Advertising/Vanity, I wish they directed their efforts on improving the TF articles on Wikipedia instead. Delete --Slux 17:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is explaining two long running servers and their history (in progress). Not only is it explaining the uniqueness of the servers and how it is democratic, but the way the users have gathered together to form a group of people that interact outside of an online game through the use of the forums mentioned. If you think showing the IPs is that we are trying to "advertise" then we will take them off. What we are trying to show is a history of the group not try push ourselves on the masses. Also, you say "I wish they directed their efforts on improving the TF articles". Users that are editting this have and will continue working on those. You may want to check the history of both and compare users before making statements like that, which are false. Keep --Cassius 17:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might be necessary to remove the IP addresses and IRC channels. However, this article is not meant to be an advertising tool, or one of vanity. Axl's TFC is a developed community with a unique history, and this article is intended to articulate that history and how it has affected the game on which it is based. Keep Nufy8 18:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a great arcticle which purpose does not fit advertising nor vanity. It merely shows what Axl's TFC is about, its history, its uniqueness. I wouldn't mind missing the IP addresses, but a link to the official website seems in place. I say we keep this topic, for the critisism is not accurate. Keep Shino 19:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment, this is Shino's first and, so far, only edit.
    • You do know that people can help wikipedia without actually having a username. May not be this his/her first edit, may just know that have to actually have an account to vote to keep this article. --Cassius
  • Comment: [6]. Mrwojo 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, at least someone over on those forums has good enough sense to discourage sockpuppets, although I see we've already got two. android↔talk 19:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • According to Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy, a sockpuppet is defined as "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Everyone who has voted is each a separate person, and therefore no aliases or sockpuppets have been used. — unsigned comment by Nufy8
        • We also use the term sockpuppet here on VfD to refer to those low-edit or new users that show up solely to defend one article. android↔talk 19:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • #1 So you are making policies yourself now? Shouldn't you go by the policy of the site that you are on, not things you make up? #2 - You are basing this off the posts they have made using a username, I have made changes without a username up until this point, but I decided to start using a username, which do not show other contributions I have made. --Cassius
            • I'm not making anything up, just describing standard practice around here. android↔talk 20:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
              • So I can break policy, as long as it's standard practice? --Cassius
                • What are you talking about? Who's "breaking policy?" android↔talk 20:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
                  • According to Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy, a sockpuppet is defined as "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Everyone who has voted is each a separate person, and therefore no aliases or sockpuppets have been used. - That's the policy, changing the definition to the "standard practice" versus what the policy says is breaking policy. --Cassius
                    • As I've already mentioned, we use a slightly different definition of sockpuppet on VfD than does Wikipedia at large. I fail to see how this is "breaking policy," but your point is a minor quibble, at best. The meaning of my initial point doesn't change whether I say "sockpuppets" or "low-edit or new users." android↔talk 20:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
                      • And you have no way of knowing how many posts a user has actually made. A username maybe, but not a user. --Cassius
  • Delete. Not notable, and as evidenced by Mrwojo's link, vanity. android↔talk 19:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how this forum thread that notifies the community of the article constitutes evidence of vanity. — unsigned comment by Nufy8
      • A member of said community created the article. That's pretty much the definition of vanity. android↔talk 19:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • The whole purpose of the forum thread was to get community members to help in the process of editing the article so that it would be as professional and noteworthy as possible.
        • You may want to read the definition of Vanity again. Wikipedia Policy Quote: "Furthermore, it should be noted that an article is not a "vanity" page simply because it was written by its subject." --Cassius
          • I'm using the definition of vanity from WP:GVFD. android↔talk 20:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
            • Sorry, didn't see a definition there, but there was the definition of what I put here: Wikipedia:Vanity_page. --Cassius
              • Search the page for the word vanity; fourth instance. android↔talk 20:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
                • Great, you keep your definition, I'll keep the one on the Vanity Page. --Cassius
  • Delete Not notable, vanity Dsmdgold 19:35, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, gamecruft, not yet persuaded that this game community forum is more notable than dozens or hundreds of others. The Radio KoL stuff referenced in a few of today's other VfD's shows more evidence of pioneering extra-game interaction related to a game than anything I see in the article or the forum. Labelling a gamers' forum "democratic" is hardly groundbreaking. Wikipedia is not a gamers' guide nor a web directory. Barno 20:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vaNNity. Radiant_* 21:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. By my personal definition, any article which requires the creation of multiple sock puppet accounts to vote "keep" fails to establish its own notability. RickK 21:34, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see myself as a sock puppet. I just never had to sign up for anything on Wikipedia. My first comment has to start somewhere! I think there is nothing wrong with this article. I don't see why people are making a big fuss out of this. Shino 10:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as gamecruft. Shino, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you post many encyclopedic articles while you are here. This is not one. You'll learn to tell the difference pretty quickly if you stick around on VfD! --Halidecyphon 21:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. —Markaci 2005-04-7 T 23:48 Z
  • Delete. Non notable vanity. Votes by users with small edit history don't count. Dave the Red (talk) 01:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would be better as an off-site homepage. Votes by users other than me don't count. Asriel86 06:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article doesn't establish noticeability Lectonar 07:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Dave, VfD's not about a vote "count," it's about the discussion and attempt to reach a consensus. Sock puppets aside, I think the validity of the arguments that a user brings to the debate are more important than the size of his edit history. —Miles (Talk) 21:59, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete absent clear evidence of influence in the gaming community Mozzerati 19:35, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable, but probably well-intentioned. Wikilawyering by previously unseen editors doesn't help this article's cause, either. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. --NormanEinstein 01:50, 12 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. Jinian 21:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Volume Imaging

  • Looks like an advertising page. Was created from the "svi.nl" domain so might also count as vanity. Awolf002 18:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • CSD Well, it is not exactly advertising, but I agree it should be deleted. I am the author, inexperienced in the wikipedia. I don't like the way is written, and I would delete it myself if I was able to. Default007 08:37, 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 redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eifersucht (song)

The article contains nothing but the German lyrics of the song (it's Schubert, I think, but I don't know the poet); there in fact seems to be little more that could be said, except that it was set by Schubert. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe transwiki to some other project (Wikisource?) that accepts lyrics. jni 18:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the lyrics on the web say "Lyrics ©1997 Rammstein", so possibly it's not Schubert, and possibly it's not PD. What's a Rammstein, anyway? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A Rammstein? who knows... Kappa 21:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The word Rammstein is German for 'ramming stone' or 'battering ram'.
  • I've deleted the copyrighted lyrics, which leaves a one-sentence substub. Redirect to Sehnsucht (album). RickK 21:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I listened to this song earlier today, actually. It's certainly not Schubert. Anywho, redirect to Sehnsucht (album). — Ливай | ☺ 23:29, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Hills Run

Might or might not be about a fictional event. Google thinks so. --Tagishsimon (talk)

  • Comment It might have happened, but was not well documented. I've always wondered about it. If no one can find any information about it, then feel free to delete. --Blizzard1
  • Comment All I can find is motorcycle tours with the same name, e.g. as listed in here. A search for +"Black Hills Run" motorcycle. is not encouraging. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Comment This seems to be a legitimate term amongst Biker types. See [here], [here, here, and here. Note that none these sites are about the "Black Hills Run", but rather casually mention it, as if they expect the reader to know what they mean. My guess is that it is done as an adjunctant to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally or is an alternate name for it. (Let me say that it shocks me that that is a red link). That a mention of it is made in Roseanne, is probably the least important thing about it though. Dsmdgold 20:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Sturgis annual event draws many thousands of motorcyclists to the Black Hills of South Dakota, and might be the single most notable event in the non-racing motorcycle community. Bikers' activity are underrepresented on the Internet and rarely draw online mention more authoritative than the links that Dsmdgold provided. The "Black Hills Run" is most likely a fringe event organized by one club with word-of-mouth publicity; it could have persisted for decades without attaining as much significance as Sturgis. No vote pending documentation. Barno 20:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Weak keep BaronLarf's revised version. I hope we can find more documentation on long-past years, but getting one source on the record helps. I don't think the Roseanne mention is WP-worthy, but if others insist it is, there'll be links between articles not otherwise related. Barno 22:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The Sturgis, South Dakota article has only a short mention and external link for the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. I'm going to add that to the Requested Articles page. Barno 20:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the article with what little I can find online. Weak keep --BaronLarf 21:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep from me now that it has been revised or possible redirect to and new section in Black Hills --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • STRONG keep, just to be difficult. It sounds like a legit locale name. I can imagine worse uses of wikispace. Asriel86 06:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was userfy. – ABCD 14:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew petre

Not notable. Unverifiable. Written by User:Mpetre, which rather suggests vanity. Delete --BM 18:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • My apologies, I did not completely understand the concept of Wikipedia, I did not do this in vanity as much as just experimentation with the format and thought that the entry would be rather innocuous and only helpful to someone who knew me personally. I apologize.--User:Mpetre 18:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Welcome. Great to say you're staying cool. I'd be happy to move it to your user space if you want to. Otherwise, delete. Mgm|(talk) 19:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy, new user test. Barno 20:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Initiate trans-format user-contributed data disposition. (Move to user page) Asriel86 06:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Mpetre has made other contributions. Therefore Userfy. Uncle G 19:10, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Speedy Userfy. The author obviously wants it as his main user page. --cesarb 20:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Welcome aboard!! - Lucky 6.9 07:49, 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. – ABCD 01:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Military One

It's a made-up callsign in the film Die_Hard_2:_Die_Harder. Not notable enough for an entire article about it; not even notable enough for a mention in the article about the movie itself. delete. Ponder 18:49, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I support deletion.
Point of notice, the progenitor of the article has removed the VFD notice from the page. — THOR 19:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, movie trivia. Insufficient significance to merge to Die_Hard_2:_Die_Fuckin'_Harder_With_A_Goddamn_Vengeance_And_Gratuitous_Cursing. Barno 20:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • nuke it, terminate it, just make it go away.  ALKIVAR™ 20:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial, cruft. Megan1967 02:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The creator of the article also added links to it from the articles about real presidential aircraft. Perhaps he believes it's true. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I am not made wiser by this article. Quite the opposite. Asriel86 06:00, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Extremely trivial movie trivia, at best. -- ChrisO 15:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I will not go back to this frownland.-Ashley Pomeroy 11:47, 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 delete. – ABCD 01:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Politics.ie

This is a stub about a non-notable website. It was added by an anonymous contributor and spam links to the website in question have also been anonymously added to various articles on Irish politics in the recent past. We should delete. Iota 19:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obvious vanity/promo delete DDerby 21:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, website advert. Megan1967 02:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Mozzerati 19:39, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Delete - I live in Ireland and have heard of the website but it's not that well known even here. -- Lochaber 13:25, 11 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. Jinian 21:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The trots

Dicdef. Guettarda 19:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete slang dicdef, and a poorly done one, at that. - DavidWBrooks 19:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously just put in as a sophomoric joke. RussBlau 20:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to Wikitionary. --Wtshymanski 05:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not worth the bother of transwikification. There are at least two other meanings of the word. And Wiktionary is simply better at this sort of thing. Let Wiktionary come up with an entry from scratch. Uncle G 19:19, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Just Delete it Asriel86 05:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to diarrhea.
  • Redirect to diarrhea and delete. Capitalistroadster 10:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Meelar (talk) 15:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 21:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quedding

Apparent neologism with no immediately discoverable usage. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • As stated on the article's talk page: As it stands, this is simply a dictionary definition and should probably be placed on gay slang. However, there may be a need for a Same-sex wedding article, in which case it should be redirected. Exploding Boy 20:38, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a dictionary definition of a word that doesn't seem to exist other than on Wikipedia. If it doesn't have sufficient usage to rate even a single mention on Google (other than the 100 or so mentions of people by the name), and if I've never heard it from any of my gay friends in San Francisco or Las Vegas, it's hard to believe it's anything other than a minor local usage, if even that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete – Google give 110 hits, all surnames. This strongly suggests that it's a neologism. – ClockworkSoul 23:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, apparently appearing nowhere but Wikipedia. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, if I didn't make it clear, Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 11 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; article replaced with temp version, text dump moved to The Economic Consequences of the Peace/text awaiting transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Economic Consequences of the Peace

Text-dump of a book. Might be suitable for either wikibooks or wikisource but I was unsure. Xezbeth 20:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: If life of the author + 50 applies, then this is still copyrighted for another year. Gazpacho 20:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The actual rule is
Any copyright still in its renewal term at the time that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act becomes effective shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured. U.S. Copyright Law, section 304(b) [7]
  • which takes it to 2014, assuming the 1919 date is correct. Speedy delete for Copyvio. —Wahoofive | Talk 21:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio is not a reason for speedy deletion, especially when the copyright status is in doubt. Kappa 00:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But if the 1919 date is correct, then its copyright had already expired by the time the CTEA became effective. The U.S. public domain includes all works published before 1923. This is a fairly notable book, though. Transwiki to Wikisource, then Redirect to John Maynard Keynes. Shimmin 23:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Accord. Pre-1923 means public domain, so transwiki. -- 8^D gab 00:26, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected, of course the Mickey Mouse Copyright Protection Act (i.e. the Sonny Bono act) only protects post-Steamboat-Willie material, although it's still a transwiki/delete since it's a source. —Wahoofive | Talk 06:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I will rewrite this as a temp article. This is a very important book by John Maynard Keynes first pointing out the problem with the peace treaty. It was the also the first book to create Keynes' reputation in the general community and also served as a guidepost when he was involved in the discussions for establishing the financial framework for the West after the second world war. This is an important book by an important author and deserves a decent article. Capitalistroadster 10:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Its source material. Perhaps replace with stub if someone care to write about the importance of this work. Gmaxwell 20:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As promised, I have rewritten this as an article The Economic Consequences of the Peace/temp. I would suggest that we put this temp article in its place. The book was a bestseller with 140,000 copies in 11 copies sold by 1924. It established the accepted wisdom of the Treaty of Peace as a Carthaginian peace. It was influential in the decision of the US not to join the League of Nations and was influential in undermining public support for implementing the Treaty regarding Germany. All of these points plus the ones made above are made in the article. The Economic Consequences of the Peace was one of the most influential books written in the twentieth century by anyone. Capitalistroadster 05:53, 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 delete. – ABCD 01:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yucca Mountain/Images

The commons:Yucca Mountain replaced this page.

  • Delete gren 20:49, 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. – ABCD 01:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Krystal

This brief article is a vanity page. DDerby 21:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Halidecyphon 21:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Dsmdgold 22:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, irrelevant.
  • Baleete, because I said so. Asriel86 05:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 04:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fifteen (restaurant)

Evidence of notability is that Bill Clinton dined there once. Not enough, I think. Gazpacho 21:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • keep, a whole reality TV series was based here. Kappa 22:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, is notable. Has been expanded, though it needs more. The Clinton thing is only one small part. Fifteen was a charitable project recruiting disadvantaged youths as cooks and training them from scratch, it was the subject of one TV series in the UK and provided the backdrop to another. Qwghlm 22:50, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, is notable - have even heard of the restaurant here in the antipodes, I would say though that there are not many notable restaurants and perhaps as a category needs to be monitored --AYArktos 01:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Subject of a TV series? Run by celebrity chef Jamie (Pukka) Oliver? Of course it's keep. --Calton | Talk 05:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, restaurant's chef is famous. Anything with famous people is notable!!!!!!!!!!1!`9 Asriel86 05:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, this one's notable. Jamie Oliver owns it and what has been said about the TV show is correct. It was also shown here in the Netherlands. Keep. Mgm|(talk) 07:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Also shown in Australia. I think the series have been shown all over the world. Capitalistroadster 10:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. N-Mantalk 12:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Jamie Oliver's restaurant. Chris 00:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • slow keep the head chef here made healthy school dinners. He's much more noteworthy some "Bill Clinton" guy.. The restaurant is FAMOUS. Consider deleting unknowns like Jesus instead. Mozzerati 20:14, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • keep why are people deleting this? who does this gazpacho think he is, the gestapo? King Dedede 22:58, 11 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. It's been done. Jinian 21:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Holt

The one fact in this article already exists in the short article about the 80's TV show she appears in Remington Steele. Per WP:FICT, Laura should not have her own page unless an extensive body of information exists for her and her TV show. DeleteRedirect (that's what I meant). --Halidecyphon 21:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Remington Steele. Average Earthman 22:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No new info in this substub to merit keeping. Delete and recreate as redirect to Remington Steele, agreeing with nominator that WP:FICT handles Laura Holt thus. Barno 00:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Remington Steele unless more info is added. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Fuzzball unless expanded. A separate article on Laura Holt is acceptable but there has to be content. 23skidoo 14:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate as redirect; no benefit in keeping the history Mozzerati 20:00, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 14:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reality TV's Most Memorible Contestants

Wikipedia is not a list of websites with misspelled names. CDC (talk) 21:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Assuming they mean memorable, it's POV. Average Earthman 22:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Totally worthless José San Martin 23:06, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV and amateurish website has no potential to become encyclopedic. Fancruft from the least fanworthy segment of US commercial television at the least fanworthy time in the medium's history. Wikislap contributor for bad taste and bad editing; well, don't byte the newbies, per policy. Barno 01:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Colleen Haskell, and I only say as much because of the website to which it refers, which seems to have some notability. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, collection of external links, trivial. Megan1967 02:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all the reasons above -- mostly because the website itself isn't even spelled correctly. Asriel86 05:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV. Looks US centric as well. Mgm|(talk) 07:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • VfD's Most Memorible (sic) Deletions. Radiant_* 12:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Footmen Frenzy

This appears to be a specific map created by fans of a videogame. I don't think it is even remotely encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 22:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Amateurish ad. Pavel Vozenilek 22:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough notability for its own page. Perhaps add it as a small section (i.e. a little less detail) in the game's page. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't related to Footmen frenzy, is it? If so, doesn't it qualify for speedy deletion? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Just in case I wasn't clear, I vote speedy delete, on the assumption it's recreated content. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Article created after seeing a empty link under the main game's page

(Above unsigned vote by User:71.107.12.38)

  • Delete or merge with game's article. More likely, delete. Asriel86 05:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Carlton is correct. Delete as recreation, or merge into game article and fix all redirects. Mgm|(talk) 07:55, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's "Calton", not Carlton. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep For any Warcraft Players, this article is highly relevant. There are several other entries on custom games too. All information can be verified by simply visiting the clan website. Note - writer is not part of the clan, and article is not intended as an advertisement.
    • Remark by User:Zhangman960, four edits and author of the article.
  • Delete fanmade maps. Radiant_* 09:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peekee

Peekee +makeup gets three Google hits, none of them relevant. Peekee +foncé gets zero Google hits. RickK 22:35, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not demonstrating notability. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I might take heed to the request on the article's discussion page if it used, like, grammar. Asriel86 05:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional Peekeecruft. -- 8^D gab 15:50, 2005 Apr 8 (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. Jinian 21:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Freeband Business Blueprint

  • del. Original research in its purest form, despite a couple of references. Also, the article did not show any success of the approach, rare google hits for the term, hence notability objection as well. Mikkalai 22:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is a description of a process from a student so it doesn't seem to be vanity publishing. The original author has provided references, so I don't see what the problem is. See here for some academic papers on it. the article could do with some context, because the methodology seems to be specific to Holland; but thats a quibble not a serious criticism. :ChrisG 20:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • We are speaking of a particular term, "Freeband Business Blueprint". I don't see its blueprint presented prominently. Encyclopedia is not in business explaining someone else's business practices. It is student's essay, original research, base on data from the Telematica institit, i.e., on primary sources. Encyclopedia must be based on secondary sources, in order to ensure peer review. Wikipedia is not in busines of verifying claims of Telematica Institut about its products. Mikkalai 20:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copy/paste from business model. Likely copyvio. Radiant_* 09:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emotastic

Should this be deleted or moved to Wikitionary? I got about a thousand google hits with this neologism. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:27, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't transwiki, delete, redirect to Emo if necessary--nixie 23:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more info is added. As it stands now it would only merit an entry in Wikitionary. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic as it stands. Megan1967 02:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is quite a colloquialism. It'd be fine at UrbanDictionary, but not here. Asriel86 05:42, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Negablog

0 Google hits - strong possibility that term only exists in user's imagination (written by User:Lotsofissues)

  • Given that it does not show up on Google, and that it is a term that only would exist on the Internet, this should probably be deleted with haste. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 00:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, term doesn't even make sense. Esoteric madness. Asriel86 05:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Blogs without google hits should be deleted. Mgm|(talk) 07:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Hilsley

[8] 36 Google results. He is the owner of label with artists and a well made site however the lack of results is an indication of lack of notability. Just this info begets a borderline keep but what bothers me is the probability that the page was self created and promotional in design. Wikipedia will have to increasingly combat the usage of the site as a marketing tool. I encourage a delete Lotsofissues 23:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, self-promo. Megan1967 02:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, kind of borderline, but it's the self-promo moreso than the lack of notability that makes me say del. Asriel86 05:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Better known as Dylan as article says and his All Music Guide article confirms the release of a number of singles [9]. I will work on cleaning this up hopefully. Capitalistroadster 11:12, 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.