Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 9

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kathleen (Kirchner) Achterberg

Delete. Not encyclopediac, impossible to tell from this article if the 6 Google hits for the choir leader are the same person. --Wtshymanski 05:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable scrap of info. Mikkalai 16:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pure junk. Mcfly85 08:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Kathleen Kirchner Achterberg is a Non-Notable member of a Non-Notable Choir. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kendama Films

Delete - self promotion, no Google footprint aside from their own website which just went on-line days ago. --Wtshymanski 05:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:20, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert/promo. Megan1967 01:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promo. Xezbeth 13:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Keppel Corporation

Noogz marked this vfd on March 12 with the comment "vfd - unnecessary publicity", but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:22, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advert/promo. Megan1967 01:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, legitimate company on Singapore Stock Exchange, notable. Andrew pmk 06:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, notable company. N-Man^talk 09:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all publicly traded companies on major exchanges. Temasek Holdings the investment company owned by the Singapore Government owns shares. Capitalistroadster 10:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - articles does not establish notability. Radiant_* 16:48, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major player in the economy of Singapore. --Andylkl ^(talk) 17:59, Apr 12, 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 01:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kinds of subjectivity

See also Intersubjectivity by the same author. Mikkalai 17:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete - original research. The only cited reference are books that appear to have been written by the article creator, and it seems to contain terminology that is not generally accepted in the field (to quote: what-it-feels-like-from-within, or, simply a "wifl".). - DavidWBrooks 19:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The validity of this article is pretty subjective, which scores a 54 on the irony scale. --Asriel86 00:47, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either original research or copyvio from here by User:Christian de Quincey who may or may not be Christian de Quincey. Mikkalai 16:52, 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 01:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Goat

Non-notable vanity, delete. No google results either by nickname or by her given name. Rx StrangeLove 00:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. --Asriel86 00:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• delete! Bubamara 01:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] ValueFirst Messaging

Wrongly proposed for speedy delete as advertising so tag changed to Votes for deletion. --Henrygb 00:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's advertising. delete --Asriel86 00:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this wonderful advertisement of this brilliant company's genius line of products. -- 8^D ^gab 00:54, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete not only an ad, has severe notability problems too. Just over 90 unique Google hits link is pretty pathetic for a tech company, and their current Alexa score of 920,063 isn't making them look any better either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: also, zero hits on either Google Groups or Google News. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Bzzzt. copyvio from [1]. But thank you for playing. (I've added it to Copyright problems.) FreplySpang (talk) 13:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It was posted by an employee of the company User:Shantanu [2] --Henrygb 20:51, 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. —Xezbeth 13:33, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monnett Weekend

As this weekend is, in fact, Monnett Weekend, this seems a strangely appropriate time to list this on VfD. Monnett Weekend is in no way notable. It is a minor event at a small liberal arts institution, namely Ohio Wesleyan University. It is essentially little more than a parents weekend with few events of any note. To say this is a major annual event in Delaware is a gross overstatement, as the town itself is really not involved at all. There are no fairs or festivals or exhibitions and no concerts or plays or other events put on by any group not a part of the university itself. I base this on four years of attendance at said university and continued contact as an alum. This should be deleted. Indrian 00:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Ohio Wesleyan University. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Indrian. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ohio Wesleyan University - Skysmith 07:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Indrian. Jni05 21:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linux Tablet

Original research, howto. Delete. --cesarb 00:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Getting better after rewrite, less of a howto and more of an encyclopedic article. However, still merge into Tablet PC after heavy cleanup. --cesarb 17:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete I agree with deleting both the original and my cleaned up sub-sub-stub. Not an article deserving of a topic anymore than, say, Linux iBook would be. Posted from a TabletPC, running BeOS, badly.... Kiand 01:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: You made above comment before the article was last updated- I would appreciate your reactions to the current article and would appreciate your advice.Vizion

Hide until someone cleans it up and makes it NPOV instead of rabid fanboy linuxcruft. this has the potential to be an interesting article, or maybe we should just delete it and add any alternative OS info to the Tablet PC. SchmuckyTheCat 01:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: You made above comment before the article was last updated- I would appreciate your reactions to the current article and would appreciate your advice.Vizion
• Redirect to Linux and merge info. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Not certain about this idea - it sounds attractive but it may not be pravticle. The topic is a bit too complex to be as a sub-topic under Linux - especially as it would also be advantageous to refer to other unixlike operating systems. It would also mean the same data would then have to be repeated for each of the other Uinxlike operating systems of which there are around 70. That would lead to undecessary duplication. I would prefer to suggest the strategy of placing a cross reference into articles for the other UnixLike and provinding a short sub-sub paragraph into Linux Tablet stating for each distribution how Tablet PC's implemenatation differs for that OS from the Linux implementation. What do you think to this strategy? Vizion
• Delete the Tablet PC article is based on the hardware not the operating system, and already mentions Linux on the tablet PCs. PPGMD 05:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wikibooks.-gadfium 05:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are several Linux tablet PCs, including Element Computer's. Perhaps this article could elaborate. Andrew pmk 06:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Tablet PC or Linux. Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) Tablet PC under Linux (and Unixlike operating systems is too complex to sit well with the structure of that TabletPC article.
• Transwiki how-tos (see the version that was vfd'd) to Wikibooks. —Korath (Talk) 10:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: see also the author's comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Some help please re Votes for Deletion. --cesarb 02:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I am the author of the original article and it was posted as a stub in the expectation that others would contribute to it and that I would add more material as itbecame available and I had the time to do so.

My view is that the topic deserves an article on its own account because it brings under one heading so many different fragments of specialized knowledge which in combination contribute to an understanding of a Linux (or any other **ix distribution)Tablet and how to build and operate one. I have already identified over 20 sub-topics which need to be referenced and indexed within the main body of the article.

The interface requirements of a Tablet is entirely different from of any other computer type. This produces particular problems for software and the OS under Linux/Unix(especially on boot up/login) and an understanding of the hardware/OS interface. I see this stub article providing a reference for all the data about the OS/software/hardware and specialist applications which can be provided using this tool.

I also envisage the article encompassing the data for other **ix like distributions supporting the Tablet PC under one title. That may justify a change in the title of the article and I would be keen to hear any suggestions. What I had in mind doing was to create a sub topic which gave modifications necessary to the data in the main article to build and operate Tablets under other **ix OS distributions.

Iwould agree that my first draft was a bit idiosyncratic and too personal in nature. I was expecting to get some pretty good constructive editing and contributions from others and had collated material ready for carrying out some editing which would have addressed that deficiency. I went back to edit the article and was astonished to find that it had been deleted (I no longer have a copy) within such a short time of the original draft being posted.

If I had realized that the would have been a risk of deletion before an opportunity had arisen to mature the first draft I might have held off from posting at the early stage. I feel it is not inappropriate to ask that the article be undeleted so Ican have an opportunity to receive helpful comments and criticisms, carried out further editing and provide an opportunity to incorporate the benefit of contributions from others.

Vizion

David Southwell

It hasn't been deleted yet. You can retrieve old versions of an article with the "history" tab. Here's a direct link to the last version you edited. —Korath (Talk) 22:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Question : So can I still edit that article -- or do I have to wait until the outcome of this dialogue? I am confused by the process. Why does Votes for deletion not take place separately to keep that process away from the article under consideration?

Vizion

Yes, you can still edit the article. The Votes for deletion is kept separate (the only change it makes to the article is to add a box on the top, which should be kept if you change the article — it will be removed when the Votes for deletion on it is closed). In fact, the removal of most of the content of the article was an edit made by someone else after the VfD notice was added, and would probably happen even without it. For more information, see the Guide to Votes for deletion. --cesarb 22:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Ok I have now started the process of editing which will continue as rapidly as I can make time available. Iwould appreciate it anyone who has constructe ideas or criticisms would please add them here so I can make best use of their knowledge and experience.

Thanks Vizion

• Comment: Wikipedia isn't a howto archive, and that seems like what you are trying to do. I think if you want to make an encyclopedia type article great, but it simply sounds like you are trying to make a howto. Now I think that the section on Linux in the Tablet PC article needs expanding, I think thats the best place for it, unless it gets too large, than you can branch it out. I would prefer one long article on Tablet PCs in general then one short article on the hardware, another short one on Windows Tablet PC Edition, and another short one on Linux Tablet PCs. PPGMD 14:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Sorry if you gained an impression from the early draft that this is intended to be a "how-to". That is not the intention as you will see as the article progresses. It is intended to be a collation of all the knowledge and references about Linux Tablet (note the article's definition of OS (Linux and Unixlike) including data about design challenges with references to design solutions. I do not want to make this a sub of the Linux article because the concentration is on the wider Unixlike needs.(I also want to avoid internecine editing wars with virulent advocates of the different Unixlike OSs). I also do not want to get involved in the spats between microsoft/apple/unix devotees which will plague us if the article is a sub of the Tablet PC. This article extends beyond the purview of The Tablet as an instrument andvextends into the areas of OS and application design. The other thing you mightbwant to take into account is that this is planned as a substantial article. I have already garnered s lot of material to be be include once the basic structure is in place.

You mightbwant to consider that I am making links to other Wiki articles as I go to make cross-references where appropriate. So to start under one heading and change later would create unnecessary work. I hope to persuade you to support me on keeping this article as is and thank you. Vizion

• Comment: Based on the current edit it can either turn into a term paper or a howto, both of those would be out of place in Wikipedia. I feel that it would benefit wikipedia more if you started your article as a section of the Tablet PC article, and only seperated out if your article starts to get too long. Until your article demostrates other wise my vote is delete and merge as posted above. PPGMD 18:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see the latest edit - I have made it clear that it is not a How-To. What do you mean by a term paper?

I am not familiar with that. Is that a word with a wiki specific meaning or is it an american word with a meaning unknown to me (I am a Brit)? I do remain strongly opposed to placing it under the Tablet PC article. I have a lot of experience of the difficulties which arise when Unixlike operating systems are discussed in the same space alongside microsoft and apple communities, especially as the agendas would, in thebcontext of this article, be entirely different. The politics get too fierce for my taste! The other thing is the structure of the Tablet PC does not facilitate the objectives of this article and I really do not believe it can be made to work. Vizion

A term paper, jeez hard to describe, I have written way too many of them when I was in college. Anyways your objectives of the article, don't seem to line up with the objectives of wikipedia, which "surveys existing human knowledge," this article would require quite a bit of original research to complete. A perfect Linux tablet PC article would include a description, short analysis of current Linux Tablet OSs, short comings of those OSs, and links to sites with howtos. Unfortunately that wouldn't be long enough to merit it's own article, when the current Tablet PC article can easily edited to accommodate it IMO. Note this is no way official, but the opinion of myself. PPGMD 18:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I am inclined to ask whether you are jumping to conclusions. First the article will bemuch more substantial than commentators here seem to assume. Maybe that is because I have been researching this topic for some time and it is extremely complex. I am not willing to provide surface treatment of the subject. The structure of an article dealing with Tablet PCs on Win XP would have to be entirely different than one on UnixLike systems. Then there would be justifiable criticism that one was writing beyond the subject topic-- the article I am writing goes well beyond that limited title!

Comment However, you seem to think that an article on Linux powered Tablets would actually be different enough.

At this very moment I am using BeOS 5.03 on a HP Compaq tc1100 tablet. I installed via a DOS network boot and a hard disk image file - took under an hour. All the hardware works (except page flip chip). Its bascially indistinguishable from using the tc1100 under Windows, except for the fact that I have a Tracker in the top right hand corner and no Windows systray. Linux is much the same. There is little that can be written about Linux, or any other OS, on Tablet PC's without devolving into a howto. Kiand 19:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment Just an aside the compaq tc 1100 is really a dual mode portable as it has a convential keyboard which is detachable. This places it in one of the genre of portable systems distinct from the "pure" Tablet. The Tc1100 shares many attributes with Laptop/Tablet but is perhaps best defined as a Tablet/laptop convertable.

The interesting is that each genre, has its own fascinating distinctions and potentials. For example it is much easier to install/repair an OS onto a Tablet with a detachable physical keyboard which is generally or frequently used in a location with access to a network than it is onto, for example, a rugged Tablet with no keyboard on board a small ship (where physical keyboards are also impracticable and get damaged) or in all terrain vehicle in the desert which never has access to a network. These systems need an OS which is standalone installable and repairable. Most Tablets in use are applied as a simple alternative to a conventional laptop. The limited vision implicit in the use of does not define what can be written about the Tablet. I hope this helps.

Vizion

• What you are writing is more comparable to a book or a howto, and is simply beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I do agree with Kiand, after checking out Wikibooks, that would be the best place for your article. We could then restructure the Tablet PC article with sections on general concept, hardware, Windows, and Linux, and under the Linux section we could link to your article on Wikibooks. PPGMD 19:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

What you are writing is not suitable for the Encylcopaedia. Without us explaining it all, please read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. What you are writing is not an encyclopaedia article; it is basically a howto under a different name.

Comment Please read the article not a single How-to in the current draft. There are headings for the insertion of further material but I can assure you that none of those headings will be filled with How-To material. Vizion

You will notice that no other encylopaedia articles list the contributors; or contain huge detailed lists of how to do things, in the way yours does.

Comment List of contributors edited out. Please read the article you will see there are no detailed lists of how to do things in the article. There are headings for sections which are being written but none of those headings will contain how-to material.

However, it would be suitable on Wikibooks, another Wikimedia project for collaborative manual and book writing. Kiand 18:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok I am taking out the list of contributors -- in english law you have to maintain a list of responsible contributors in any publication to meet the needs of libel lawyers.. if you do not do so then the publisher can be liable with a very poor defense..so I am following normal practice.

I hear you on your how-to objection but I ask you not to judge so hastily. Seriously I have reason for saying that that label will not be sustainable as the article matures.

The History tab keeps that detail, including who wrote what.

I still say this article is more suited to wikibooks. Kiand 19:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - This has no more relevance than "Windows Tablet", which thankfully does not exist. Personally, I'd recommend axing it. This article [...] collates and discusses [...]

............ Comment by Vizion: This remark quotes from an earlier draft. Current draft makes intention clear -

This is not an encyclopedia entry. The appropriate place for this would perhaps be a newsgroup or a forum, but not Wikipedia. -- Dpark 19:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --cesarb 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question? Please tell me where the Linux Tablet falls into one of the categories identified in What Wikipedia is not-- as far as I can see it does not do so. If you can show me where it does then I will edit accordingly.. Vizion

Comment: I think you have all created an opportunity for me to identify WHY the encyclopaedic knowledge brought together in this article is required. At this point in time there seems to be a general assumption is that the Tablet PC is defined by reference to a Microsoft instance (see Kiands comment - he compares his Tablet as says it does whatever Microsoft can do -- (it could be argued, outside of an encyclopeadic article, that Microsoft's Tablet Edition does not begin to test the Tablet potential possibly because of the limits placed by the privacy of its Operating System source code). In fact the limitations on Tablet potential may be arguably defined by the Microsoft instance and by the public lack of encyclopeadic information about the Tablet. Now that is not an argument which I would dream of including in a Wiki but because there is no publicly accessible source of enclopaedic knowlege about the Tablet the Tablet is in default defined by Microsoft. It might be argued Microsoft would like to keep it that way by retaining their encycopaedic knowledge of the topic in their private domain. I freely acknowledge that I am a newbie in the Wiki world but why do you guys not let something mature a bit before trying to delete it,or, in the alternative, make some constructive suggestions so the article can meet essential requirements? In the current context I cannot help but feel a decision to delete this article would amount to censorship in Microsoft's interest. At thensame time even though I assume this is not personal, and the comments have been made in good faith, it is hard to resist the feeling of being jumped on before time and of exclusion.

Vizion REWRITTEN: The article is being rewritten and I suggest it be revisited. The suggestion the article is a How-to isva false assumption --I cannot but repeat what is said in the article. This is not a How-to article Vizion

Comment: I've tried to clean up the style, though it could still use some work. Even so, I still vote for deletion. I can't help but notice that despite the article being fairly long, it doesn't really contain any information. I or someone else can continue to work on the style, but until there's useful information, can we justify keeping this article? If there really is anything useful in this article that I'm overlooking, maybe it should be merged with Tablet PC. I still don't see the need in a Linux-Specific Tablet PC article, especially until there's a larger body of information. I'd recommend a sub-section on the Tablet PC page, and if it grows large enough, then it could be moved into its own article. So far, there's just a page and a half of empty headings. That does not constitute an article. Dpark 23:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I think I've pretty much exhausted what I can/am willing to do for the style. Looking through the article, I found that the following things qualify as useful and original content: The intro sentence. That's pretty much it (and I added that). The rest is either already in other articles (the definitions, basic info on the touch-panel), qualifies as how-to (how to install using a usb keyboard versus custom software), or as "what should be here" (About this Article, everything under the subheadings). The usefulness of the intro sentence is pretty much up for debate, too, since it depends on the importance of the term (which I'd rate as pretty low). I still say delete. There's not really anything here to even merge into Tablet PC. It's been almost two weeks since it was created, and there's still no real content. Dpark

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) 02:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goomba

This is very unencyclopedic. In the real world, encyclopedias don't waste money producing articles about moving pixels. It reeks of fancruft to boot. It's better to start cleaning up Wikipedia now before it gets overrun with gamecruft. I know a lot of people agree with me when I say this article is the perfect starting point. Setting a deletion precedent with this article will lead to a much more professional Wikipedia. Navid 02:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, mariocruft. Megan1967 02:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete C-list actor 02:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gamecruft. Z26
• Delete Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Y25
• Delete Pseudoinformation. X24
• Delete If this stays, then we'll never get rid of all the Pokemon-cruft, and Ashlee Simpson cruft. W23
• Delete Not notable. V22
• Delete Unencyclopedic. U21 — (All of these "votes" were submitted by User:C-list actor.)
• Keep. There's a deletion precedent/policy for minor/major characters in media already, at WP:FICT. I would classify the Goomba as a major character/concept in the Mario universe; as such, this should be merged in with that article, but they are both already far too long for that. By the way, it's very hard to take this nomination seriously if you don't follow correct procedure – the article in question doesn't even have a VfD notice. android↔talk 02:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like Android79 said, Goombas are a large part of the Super Mario games.—Boarder8925 15:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like Missingno., this is well-written. Hedley 02:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is a featured article, and the parade of socks only makes me more suspicious. Whoever this is, don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Oh, and keep, obviously. Meelar (talk) 02:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Meelar. It would be very suspicious if anyone votes delete on this nomination. A1 03:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet of C-list Actor, who is blocked. Hedley 03:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Meelar that it is already a feature Wikipedia article. It is the first bad guy appeared in an iconic video game and it has appeared in almost every popular Super Mario game. Freezie and Bunny Hood are gamecrufts, though. Too bad, those articles survived the VfD process. --Anonymous Cow 03:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I say keep.DS 03:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.--Matteh (talk) 04:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Glad to hear the party responsible for this has been banned. A featured article with a sockpuppet VfD vote is a first for me! - Lucky 6.9 05:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Furthermore, this is a high quality article. Finally, the user who stuffed this vote was User:C-list actor.
  • Andrew pmk forgot to sign. [3] —Korath (Talk) 13:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. This kind of fancruft is not encyclopedic on its own. Very surprising that something like this can become a featured article. Martg76 07:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Since it was missing, I have added the vfd-tag to the article. This article is far too good to be deleted, although I am slightly surprised that a topic like this received featured article status. Sjakkalle 08:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This nomination should be removed because of the sockpuppet vandalism involved. N-Man^talk 10:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep featured articles. Delete the rest. :) —Korath (Talk) 10:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and raise the rest to featured article standard. Kappa 11:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep obviously. Army of (rather obvious) sockpuppets, featured article, topic has 87,700 Google hits, WP needs more articles of this size, depth, and quality, not less! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and article describes important part of the Super Mario world. Besides, nominating featured articles is disruption. They've already received a community vote of approval. Mgm|^(talk) 14:14, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Featured Article status should be the only criteria for speedy keeping. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. C-List Actor appears an attempt at WP:POINT made anonymously by an existing 'Pedian; I believe an IP check may be in order. Radiant_* 15:18, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge, weakly. The fact that a notable delete supporter was not acting in good faith doesn't invalidate the action. It's unencyclopedic. Gmaxwell 20:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Trolling. Xezbeth 20:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major character. Featured article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! It's freakin goomba! Major character of a game series deeply engraved into many of our lives. The article is fantastic, as well. I submit that flagger is a doofus. --Asriel86 01:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have little patience with fancruft, but this is definately worthwhile stuff. Indrian 06:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The "real world" is what we're trying to improve on here. Articles like this are what makes Wikipedia superior to any "normal" encyclopedia.
• Keep If you don't like the pages on video games, just don't read them. E-100 Alpha
• Abuse VfD is not an instrument of revenge. Chris talk back 17:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is for all people, not just those who consider Video Games unprofessional. The reason Wikipedia is so great is that there can be articles that would never be in a "normal" encyclopedia, and I thinke there is room for everyone, even "fancruft".Weyoun6 00:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Carolaman
• Extremely strong keep. Andre (talk) 17:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, featured article. K1Bond007 18:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, feautured article, original VFD by a sockpuppet, important concept in video games. Solver 18:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly good article. Would be a merge and delete if it was a single sentence, but one article developed this much? oh please. ^wS 20:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a major character in a video games series that has sold hundreds of millions of copies worldwide. Mario, and Goombas are cultural icons, and this is clearly an attempted abuse of the VfD system, which is already busy enough with genuine complaints. --Hn 04:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and unencyclopedic mariocruft. ComCat 06:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, merge with mario article. keeping this would allow for terabytes of info about every video game character ever made. uncyclopedic. Gazeofsorrow 08:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, They've obviously put loads of effort into this, and the Goombas are a large part of the Super Mario series.

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, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cartalina Fixaw

Seems like a bogus entry, and this doesn't quite fit the speedy criteria. – ClockworkSoul 02:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, non-notable. 0 Google hits. Very close to patent nonsense. --InShaneee 02:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Possible hoax. Definitely not notable. If real, then vanity. Too many short sentences. I hate that. Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 03:15, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete unless somehow verified. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails the Google test. Andrew pmk 06:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete either vanity or hoax Dsmdgold 10:42, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Can't really be vanity if subject is long dead. Still doesn't Google, and the story is pretty wacky... so wacky that if it indeed were true she'd have at least a certain amount of fame by now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as per Starblind. P Ingerson 14:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Except for Clockwork adding the VfD, all edits appear to be from two addresses on the same ISP. One created the article, the other "vandalized" it, then the first immediately came back and reverted it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This sounds like one of those stories we get in class for lab safety. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the actual basis of this article. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claudia Villalobos

Delete. Not notable, possible vanity. 164 Google hits. No evidence of notability given except for being the daughter of a model who Googles even less than she does (2 hits, one being the article in question) and for being a candy spokesmodel at the age of six. android↔talk 02:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN and very little info in the article. --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, not notable. The article also says she's not even a model anymore, so there doesn't even seem to be any liklihood of future notability along the same line. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. many of the mentioned google hits are about not this claudia. Mikkalai 17:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Dsmdgold 02:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 01:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless waste of time

Delete. This page is quite clearly an advertisement. RSieradzki 02:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied it. – ClockworkSoul 02:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BozPW

Delete. This page is talking about some internet user's alter ego. It's nothing educational nor should it exist in an encylcopaedia. RSieradzki 02:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete – Indeed useless. – ClockworkSoul 02:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Fuzzball! (talk) 05:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity/Attack Dsmdgold 10:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity of an even lamer variety than usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteYou're kidding me. What a joke. Very lame indeed. Pufferfish101 23:37, 14 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) 03:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robot Master

This is gamecruft at it's worst. It needs to be deleted before the obsessive inclusionists try to add more junk into it. C-list actor 02:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. Note that User:C-list actor has tried the "Army of Obvious Sockpuppets" approach with Goomba. android↔talk 02:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I think C-List Actor didn't put this on VfD for the reasons VfD should be used, but instead to cause disruption, clear by sockpuppets on Goomba. Hedley 03:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • C-List Actor was just blocked for sockpuppeting VfDs. On the basis that this VfD was never properly formed (Robot Master was never given a VfD tag), I think it should be closed. Hedley 03:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I heartily agree. Leave the article at least until someone has a valid nom. And if anything can be done about his hoard of socks, that should be done, as well. --InShaneee 03:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User who put this vote up for deletion uses sock puppets. Also, same reasons as why I voted to keep Goomba. Andrew pmk 06:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into Mega Man. This is fancruft that is not encyclopedic on its own. Martg76 07:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, malformed VfD, trolling. Xezbeth 07:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I slapped on a vfd-tag since articles on the vfd page should have one whether or not the nomination was in good or bad faith. Oh yes... the nomination is in my view ridiculous. Sjakkalle 11:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep see also the Goomba VfD for the whole story. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. At least it's better than having individual articles for every robot on the list! P Ingerson 14:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. At the very least such a list stops a whole bunch of useless stubs from being created. Also, the vfd was made in bad faith. Mgm|^(talk) 14:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 15:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It may need a different name, though. Robot Master is not the first place I would look for a complete list of Mega Man bosses. Indrian 06:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Matteh (talk) 14:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - KingTT 14:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bad faith or not, this is gamecruft --Bucephalus 17:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Mega Man. Andre (talk) 18:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more nn gamecruft, no potential to become encyclopedic. ComCat 06:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's better to compress all robot masters into one article than for people to make 100 articles on each robot master. Nestea 15:52, 14 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 CDC (talk) 16:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John moffat

hoax/vanity. Do a search on "John moffat" and "Mufter" as implied by the article. Your search - "John moffat" " Mufter" - did not match any documents. Also a hoax hit game called "Forget the Alamo" was mentioned. If it was a hit game, then why isn't Google placing it (with "Forget the Alamo"+"game") on the first two page results. (didn't even bother to go on) "Forget the Alamo"+"Quake 3" didn't get any results. --Anonymous Cow 03:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Did you mean: "John Moffat" "Muster"? No, I meant Delete. android↔talk 03:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is somone's concept of a joke. A self-described "con artist" tells us he created an excellent mod for Quake, and claims that he resides in ... "Tokyo, Arizona," a location I could find no reference to the existance of on Wikipedia or Altavista. Vanity / Hoax page. --TheAdversary 06:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A 2005 hit quake mod without google hits? Mods to games aren't really notable on their own, and even if they were their creators aren't for sure. Delete this hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 14:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. prank. The same anon prankster two minutes befor creating this vandalized Opeth. Mikkalai 17:16, 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. jni 19:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christianforums.com

Looks like just another minor website vanity page. – ClockworkSoul 03:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment Is is an extremely well trafficed message board. There are other websites with similar traffic which have their own pages, such as Internet Infidels.

The difference is that this article thus far is just a vanity page. If it were more encyclopedaic, it might be fine, but as it is it should be deleted. Sholtar 03:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• No vote as yet. Site itself boasts that the forums have 107,220 members, but it has an Alexa ranking of 49,546. Have there been precendents set for Web forums based on number of members? I think there have, but I can't find them. Normally, I'd vote delete on something like this and say "Wikipedia is not a website directory," but despite the Alexa ranking, this might be somewhat significant. (BTW, does anyone else find some forums are "Christian Only" as defined by the administrators a tad creepy?) android↔talk 03:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding forum membership precedents, we seem to often vote to delete forums with an obviously small number of members, but on the other hand the opposite doesn't seem to be true: i.e. that forums with membership above a certain number should be kept. This makes sense, because obviously it's very easy to lie about membership numbers, and even "truthful" member counts almost always include inactive accounts, banned users, sockpuppets, bots, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Complete This article isn't encyclopaedic, it's barely even well-typed. While I'm not sure whether or not this deserves a wiki entry, if it does, it needs a complete entry. Currently, it is just a vanity page for a website. Our comments on what to do with this contain more info than the actual posting. --TheAdversary 06:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pretty awful substub, reads more like an ad or web guide entry than an encyclopedia article. While the Alexa rank of 50,000 is higher than a lot of the websites we VFD, it certainly isn't so incredibly high that the article should be kept on that basis alone. Maybe someday somebody could write a decent article on this topic, but this isn't it (or even a good start for it). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, irght now it's advertising, but if the number of forum members checks out and a significant amount of them is active, I'd have no problem with an encyclopedic entry on the site. Mgm|^(talk) 14:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the Alexa rank speaks volumes. Notability just hasn't been established. --InShaneee 19:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advert/promo. Megan1967 03:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think the same article may hav already been through vfd once --nixie 23:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reasons as already stated by others. Loopy 19:32, 14 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. jni 19:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ninja Tag

Actually sounds pretty badass, but only gets a few Google hits, so I'm saying delete as original research. --InShaneee 03:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - It sounds like a blast, and I really want to keep, but I don't think it's notable enough. – ClockworkSoul 03:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Looks hilarious, but also like someone's talking out ther as- ... ear. And definately not something that I've ever heard of, or found on a brief search to check it. I think someone's just trying to make their made-up game a little more real. --TheAdversary 06:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although, damn, that sure sounds fun! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the game is legitimate it should probably be merged with Capture the flag --Fuzzball! (talk) 19:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, original research. Megan1967 03:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I love "Capture the Flag" and this sounds like incredible fun. Sadly, 'tis original research. Hey, if we ever get together in person, I'm up for a round! - Lucky 6.9 05:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. That is a pretty cool idea and I found 3 google hits. - Isep 13:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Guess what kind of puppet Isep is...? Right! Two edits. One here and one at the original article. - Lucky 6.9 02:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Dang. You're onto me. :-p - Isep 23:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Yup.  :) I still think the game sounds like fun. - Lucky 6.9 19:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the game's pretty unique and it's also a fun article. It could probably use more writing of the rules, but I say keep. - blackcomet 23:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Posted by non-regerstered anon user user:4.155.63.12, only 2 edits to this page. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons for deletion given above. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:57, 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 no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wooster (Mario character)

Just not encyclopedia-material. A minor character in somewhat popular book publications of Nintendo characters. --Anonymous Cow 03:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• keep, would fit nicely in an encyclopedia of Nintendo Mario characters. Kappa 06:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, since this character is only in a comic book and not one single Mario game, I doubt you would find him in such an encyclopedia at all. I will grant you that he might make the cut in a Mario encyclopedia. Indrian 06:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No reason not to keep this, its well entered, and a valid entry, as a character in a book. --TheAdversary 06:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, no potential to become encyclopedic. Martg76 08:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Compress, redirect, and merge to List of Nintendo characters. Shimmin 11:42, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of interest to Mariofanatics. Sjakkalle 11:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Shimmin. P Ingerson 14:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's really that minor merge it into a list of minor characters. Mgm|^(talk) 14:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 15:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Xezbeth 15:08, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. — JIP | Talk 18:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but perhaps someone would like to merge the lesser Mario characters into single entries? --Fuzzball! (talk) 19:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge as per decision above. --InShaneee 19:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. mariocruft. Megan1967 03:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mario games are notable, and many things in Mario games are notable, but minor characters in Mario comics are not. Indrian 06:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere.--Matteh (talk) 14:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not merge. Well over the crufty line --Bucephalus 17:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Burgundavia 07:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Andre (talk) 18:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn mariocruft of the highest order. ComCat 06:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge While it's well-written, it does not warrant its own article. But since it IS well-written, it'd be pointless to delete it from the face of the Earth.
• Redirect. Firebug 04:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenforth Pham

No results on Google. If it is true, it is still not encyclopedia-worthy. --Anonymous Cow 04:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete... I read this article, and it sounded either like a joke or a vanity article. The suicide part was sad, but the names of the bandd, songs, and album sounded like a joke. --TheAdversary 06:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 04:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Argedava

Looks to be just a school paper. Apparently, it may be copyvioed as well (judging from the attribution at the bottom). – ClockworkSoul 04:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the topic looks legitimate. Cleanup/major rewrite? 141.211.138.85 04:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Self-styled Copyvio. I've listed it. Uncle G 11:44, 2005 Apr 9 (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. jni 19:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zero-hit wonder

Delete, there is no such thing as "Zero-hit wonder. Kelisfan2k5 stop removing this off the votes for deletion. (listed by a helpful anon 66.91.63.100)

• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. This is a harmless Wikipedia article. If you delete this, then you might as well delete: Two-hit wonders in the United States and Goomba. Sure it's a little crufty, but it's not harming Wikipedia. ZzZ 05:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User's 5th edit, all today. VfD has become invaded with both pro- and con-deletion sockpuppets today. RickK 06:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. First of all, the term zero-hit wonder is a little self contradictory - what is so wondrous about a band without a hit? Secondly, the given criteria for listing is arbitrary and seems by it's very definition POV. Thirdly, the term "zero-hit wonder" racks up a less than wonderous 27 hits on Google [4]. I woudln't call this entry a little crufty - I'd call it useless and unencyclopedic. Arkyan 05:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to No-hit wonder, which does somewhat better on the Google test. But -->Keep<--. I was surprised that some listed band had never had a top-40 hit, so there's something to be said for the concept of a band that is widely known and yet hasn't had a single. -- 8^D ^gab 05:48, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • (wanted to be sure my vote did not get lost in the shuffle, being off to the side and all) -- 8^D ^gab 06:49, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Andrew pmk 06:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A "no-hit wonder" and a zero-hit wonder are different things. A no-hit is a band that plays all right, but never made it to the charts, likely something popular in a specific genre of music, but without enough mainstream backing to crack the charts. A "Zero-Hit Wonder" sounds like someone's ploy to make it onto wikipedia with an article. Similar enough to make it, but not actually a real or useful article. --TheAdversary 06:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • New user, all of whose edits were either to VfD pages or the creation of VfD pages. RickK 06:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why, exactly, would someone need a"ploy" to "make it onto wikipedia with an article"? There are thousands of articles that need writing - just look at Wikipedia:Most wanted articles for a starter. -- 8^D ^gab 06:59, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
      • I assume he means that it's a ploy for the bands to make it onto Wikipedia, since band vanity articles are routinely deleted per WP:NMG. (The bands in this list, however, meet criterion 1.) No vote from me. —Korath (Talk) 10:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like the article creator arbitrarily made up the term. Everyone knows intuitively what a one-hit wonder is... but saying a zero-hit (or two-hit) falls between X and Y on the charts is NOT intuitive. Feco 07:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Angr/_comhrá 08:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Look at the Criteria for Inclusion. I don't have exact numbers, but (knowing what a small percentage of songs hit the Billboard Top 40) if you add bands from Billboard's bottom 60 and/or the American Top 40 and/or the Radio & Records CHR you get . . . . a lot of songs. At that point we might as well just dump the entire history of the Billboard Hot 100 onto a huge list. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's also not a general knowledge base. Soundguy99 11:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to No-hit wonder, but change the criteria for inclusion to only include artists COMMONLY thought of as one-hit wonders. --KelisFan2K5 13:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Above user is the entry's original author. Arkyan 14:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And KElisFan2K5 has seen fit to blank the page, which I have reverted and suggested to the User is not an appropriate action. RickK 21:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The definition makes no sense as anyone who manages to get a song in the Top 100 is considered to have had a hit. Impossible to maintain since there are no doubt thousands of performers that were "zero hit wonders". 23skidoo 14:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, contradictory definition (and most bands that are zero-hit wonders would fall below the band inclusion guidelines). Radiant_* 15:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable —Wahoofive | Talk 17:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, etymology-cruft. --InShaneee 19:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this article. Any info/comment presented in this can be added to the individual band pages and One-hit wonder can be corrected if they are incorrectly listed there. --Fuzzball! (talk) 20:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — The only criteria that would make any sense for something like this is if the artists have a substantial body of popular work but never actually had a major singles hit. — RJH 03:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, unmanagable, cruft. Megan1967 04:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CDC (talk) 05:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, scope too broad. Dave the Red (talk) 05:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. As well, it presents an open opportunity for bands/artists who fail to meet guidelines to list themselves in the article. My father and brother were both in bands that played for various periods of time but never had a hit or made a record. Most bands don't so nothing notable about them. Capitalistroadster 10:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is meant to document existing phenomena, not create new ones. While I think that the concept is interesting, it is far too vague to ever be encyclopedic. "Zero Hit Wonder" gets 28 hits on Google. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:02, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Gotta say delete this one - setting up our own criteria is simply original research. Rhobite 05:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful information. Grue 06:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism/trivial. -- Dcfleck 13:12, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no such thing as a "Zero Hit Wonder," as the helpful anon said. Carolaman
• Delete. Neologism. CatCrofts 05:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-existent wordcruft. ComCat 06:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Neologism. Xezbeth 18:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wiki aint paper. It's an extant concept. Klonimus 07:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Øystein Runde

• Keep Øystein Runde has written Norways first and only superhero comic, Bjartmann,

and he also recived the most money from the norwegian comic foundation last year. Norway is a strong nation when it comes to cartoon/comics and I think a couple more should be included, not excluded. Being involved with Kristopher Schau is not a reason in itself, however.

• Keep I'm responsible for this entry. Kristopher Schau, the Norwegian muscician and artist has an entry in the English Wikipedia. Upon seeing that, I thought it useful to supplement this article with the fact that he also is the author of a quite controversial comic. Namely, Margarin. Øystein Runde, the illustrator of this comic, is an up-and-coming cartoonist in Norway and also has entries in the Norwegian Wikipedia. Admittedly, I got a bit carried away with some of my entries (including Sigurd Ohrem which I admit I do know and which I agree should be deleted or in any case only appear on a Norwegian site) on my first day here at Wikipedia. But if Kristopher Schau is worthy of a Wikipedia entry, so is Øystein Runde. He has, by the way, as the unofficial criteria demands, been published in a periodical with a circulation of 5,000 or more (Smult) as well as having published two comics of his own with a circulation of similar magnitude. Not to mention his monthly strip in Spirit, with a circulation of a lot more than 5,000. The man is a notable Norwegian sub-cultural phenomenon. I will add a link and expand this stub in the run of some days to make it more serious. I will also include information from some of the smaller articles pertaining to this man.-- Gaupepasser 18:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no problem with the notability of Kristopher Schau. But having worked with him is not reason for notability per se. He has worked with hundreds of people. -- Egil 17:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It is not based on his co-operation with Kristopher Schau alone that Øystein Runde is worthy of an entry. As I mentioned above, Øystein Runde has been published and is constantly published in periodicals with a circulation of more than 5,000. In case you misunderstood, I was referring to Øystein Runde, not Kristopher Schau, in my comment. For the year 2004, he received a substantial amount of the support funds of Norsk Tegneserieråd (Norwegian Comic Council). The man is notable in his own right. He is more known for Margarin than Schau. Gaupepasser 20:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Presumably an autobiography/vanity. Sufficient notability not established. -- Egil 04:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Can you get someone familliar with Norwegian culture to verify this entry's notability or lack thereof? Andrew pmk 06:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks like yet another guy pushing all his friends into WP. Check out his contributions. The subject of one of his articles has an IMDB entry, though. Rl 10:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough, nor is his comic. Even in Norway. Sjakkalle 11:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 20:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Yang

Vanity page. Not notable. Delete. Andrew pmk 05:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Sjakkalle 11:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 20:24, 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 03:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Shanks

This is most certainly a vanity page, and if it weren't, it would be a stub. Asides, its dull.

This should be removed, so that if something encyclopaedic with this name comes along, the space is free.

--TheAdversary 06:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 10:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. No real content. 131.211.210.12 11:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's me, in case you're wondering how an anon can speedy something. ;) Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel Database Project

Was nominated as a speedy, but I think it's worthy of a Vfd process. Personally, while I'm not interested in the contents, I think a non-commercial website and a wiki deserves more consideration than being deleted as an advert. No vote.-gadfium 06:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't noticed any other wikicites-type projects writing advertisment pages for themselves, I think it would be best to include an external link on the Marvel page, and redirect this to Marvel --nixie 12:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was that one that originally tagged this with speedy deletion. The website this article refers to is fairly new, has no notability, and shouldn't be confused with well-established sites such as marveldirectory.com. It came to my attention when the creator spammed his website to about 60 comicbook articles. The website it refers to looks impressive, but is an empty shell devoid of content. --NormanEinstein 16:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, marvelcruft. ComCat 06:35, 14 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 BJAODN and delete. – ABCD 19:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shoe Shopping

Article does nothing but rehash title. Self-explanatory. Delete. Andrew pmk 06:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, not encyclopedic. Delete.--Plainsong 06:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Unintentionally hilarious. Prime BJAODN, IMO. :) Delete as experiment. - Lucky 6.9 07:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lest we open the floodgates for spatula shopping, runcible-spoon shopping, rhubarb pie shopping etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Necessity is not required to initiate a "Shoe Shopping" event" I think translates into English as "You can never have too many shoes". Important advice I'm sure, but hardly encyclopedic. Then again, I'm sad enough to be amused by this too so possibly BJAODN. SteveW | Talk 14:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Miscapitalized title, self-referential, no useful information that can't be seen from the title. I think this is a speedy delete candidate, but let's copy it to BJAODN first. Mgm|^(talk) 14:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Into the land of dreams and socks. Klonimus 07:58, 15 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 19:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quietude

This was previously nominated for deletion as a dicdef (I moved that nomination to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quietude/archive1, hope that's correct procedure) and the consensus was to transwiki. As this has since been transwikied to Wiktionary, I propose deletion. --Dmcdevit 06:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I was surpried that this is a real word, there is probably not much possibility for this to be expanded beyond a dic def, so I vote delete--nixie 12:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete can't be expanded. (CHeck if history has been transwikied before deletion. Mgm|^(talk) 14:36, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • See the talk page (that's where history goes) for Wiktionary:Transwiki:Quietude.--Dmcdevit 16:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random Mootness

Not encyclopedic, nor is there potential to become encyclopedic. Possibly a candidate for speedy deletion (nonsense?) Should be deleted. --Canoeguy81 06:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Random Mootness is a common expression in the North-eastern United States. This page should not be flagged for deletion, as it is an expression that is severely under-represented on the Internet.

• A google search found absolutely no references to "random mootness" on the WWW. That makes me doubtful it's a common expression.--Canoeguy81 06:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As previoiusly stated, this expression is under-represented on the Internet; hence the reason for the Wikipedia entry. It is purely colloqial - Western-half of NY, PA, Ohio & Western Maryland especially. If you have access to a major university library, I can provide you with the names of scholarly linguistics journals which have documented this expression, as a colleague of mine has written extensively on such topics.

• The anonymous comments are by User:67.20.251.30. RickK 06:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• So I guess I need to create a Wiki account to lend any more credibility? I can't anonymously contribute to the World's Lexicon?

So much for the stated Wikipedia policy Don't bite the newcomers. Your elitism is arrogant and offensive.

• Hi anon, it helps if you sign your comments, even if you don't have an account. Unfortunately we have a problem with hoaxes and vandals, so we need everything to be Ŕverifiable. But actually I'm not too sure what will happen if you can provide precise references in scholarly linguistics journals. By the way, if you are looking for the world's "Lexicon" you need wiktionary. Kappa 07:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Feco 07:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kappa - I think I'll just throw in the towel though. Maybe when Merriam-Webster picks up the expression, someone else will add it to the Wikis.

• Delete and comment: No one's biting anyone and no one wishes for you to throw in the towel. After looking at your edit history, I noticed that most of your edits simply didn't qualify as encyclopedia entries. The one you did about "shoe shopping" was a perfect example of what I mean. That isn't elitism at all. It's a combination of common sense and wise use of the site's resources. Opening an account won't necessarily mean your anonymous contributions would lack credibility. If anything, it'll strengthen your position. The door's open. Come on in. If that isn't anti-elitism, I don't know what is. - Lucky 6.9 07:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, I hadn't felt the need to vote on this till User:67.20.251.30 began throwing random nonsense into it, but this is verging on speedy delete status now. Delete. RickK 08:18, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UPDATE

• Ok, relax and read the updated version. Hopefully you'll agree it's up to "Wiki" standards. It was my belief that the point of the Wiki was to introduce the topic as a sort of "Place-holder" for update later. I didn't expect to have to spend as much time as I have, for a simple explanation. Futhermore, the Random nonesense, as you put it, is the key to Random Mootness. I wouldn't believe you one bit if you said you've never discussed "Who would win..." in hypothetical scenarios. Animal Planet seems to think it has enough merit to do an entire series of Random Mootness as it relates to the animal kindom - not by that name, of course.
  • Don't edit other people's comments. RickK 08:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Lots of hits on Google, but most, perhaps all, are irrelevant. The article's of some interest, but it's essayistic and about an insignificant neologism. Delete. -- Hoary 09:15, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• I've certainly never heard of "random mootness" and I don't feel as though I know much more about it having read the article. Why does the "Related Random Mootness" section have a link to "Wikiepedia"? Unless somebody can demonstrate the widespread existence of this phenomenon (involving an audience of at least 5,000) I will vote to Delete Oliver Keenan 09:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC). In fact this is worse than I first thought, if you look at the links in the "Related Random Mootness" section, they are to an array of bizarre, random, totally unrelated pages, a significant percentage of which are also on the VfD page. Oliver Keenan 10:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I am new to Wikipedia, so I hope I am adding my note appropriately. A friend pointed out this page. Based on personal experience, I would expect the "audience" to well exceed 5,000. I do not believe the article should be removed, but the author of the article has made an error. Per the article, the genealogy of the term involves the sitcom Seinfeld. Seinfeld ran from 1989-1998. The term took hold in WNY (Buffalo and Rochester, NY and surrounding regions) prior to that time. Although I have no evidence to verify the relationship other than personal observation, the term seems to stem from an episode of Saturday Night Live that first aired on 10/20/84. Jesse Jackson was a guest on the show. At one point, he played a character in a game show. When asked a question, he responds “The question is moot. I’ll take the car!” I did not see the episode, but noticed that the word “moot” was being overused in everyday language in my high school – with the meaning becoming more general, akin to irrelevant. After inquiring, I was advised that quite a few people had seen the episode and that the word stuck a chord as being humorous. Therefore, it stuck. Keep in mind that SNL carried terrific ratings at this point. Shortly after that time, the expression seemed to naturally expand into “random mootness”. I later went to SUNY-Buffalo and usage of the term was widespread. Apparently, the phenomenon was not limited to my high school. Again, I have no idea how or why… 21 years later, both “moot” and “random mootness” continue to be commonplace terms in the area. I do not know if everyone uses it, but many do. One specific place where I have heard it repeatedly is at Buffalo Bills football or Buffalo Sabres hockey games over the years. When a play goes against the home team, I have often heard – and, admittedly, occasionally said – comments along the line of “Oh, that was just moot!” or “C’mon, ref! What is with this random mootness?” I do not mean to imply that the term is only used at sporting events, as I hear it in the workplace and many other settings. In summary, I am surprised that the term is geographically isolated and am equally surprised that it has no presence on the web. However, why would anyone bother? To me, it is like devoting a page to the term “oh, boy” or “I agree”. It is just a phrase… However, it is clear that many people are not familiar with it. If Wikipedia is a place to spread this type of information, then I think it should stay. By the way, one poster comments “…links in the "Related Random Mootness" section, they are to an array of bizarre, random, totally unrelated pages…”. Are you missing the point? The author is trying to better define the term by linking to “random mootness”. I don't have a user name.12.19.225.242 13:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Feel free to support the article by adding those references to "scholarly linguistics journals" to the article itself. FreplySpang (talk) 13:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, I flipped a coin and it came up tails, so Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 13:57, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. And good luck finding anything in scholarly linguistics journals to support it. This is about as close to lingustics as Demi Moore's movie of The Scarlet Letter is to Nathaniel Hawthorne's book. --Angr/_comhrá 16:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless we see verifiable citations from the aforementioned scholarly journals. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete My friends and I use "random mootness" all the time. I'm located in Rochester, NY - didn't know the phrase was as widely used as it appears to be.
• Delete, not verifiable--nixie 04:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE Of course it's verifiable! Call any friends or relatives in the geographic areas specified and ask them.

• Do Not Delete and question the validity of the opinions of people in California, England and Australia regarding a regional phrase. I do notice a Wiki entry for Lake effect snow, which was exclusively a regional phrase until our national spotlight during the Blizzard of '77. And if anyone can say they have never argued about Artificial turf, the Designated hitter rule, what is Gonzo (Muppet), Ginger Grant vs. Mary Ann Summers or Wilma Flintstone vs. Betty Rubble, I feel sorry for you. - BBH
  • Comment: Am I mistaken in thinking that each user gets only one vote? This seems to be 12.19.225.242's third.--Canoeguy81 16:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Am I mistaken in thinking that there are such things as gateways which present the same IP address for each user? If you want, I can post from home just to get a different IP address. - BBH
    • Comment: I'm not very knowledgable about these things, and in fact I don't even know what a gateway is, so of course I didn't consider that possiblity. Still, I find it odd that three separate users using the same IP address would all flout the standard custom of signing their votes (and comments).--Canoeguy81 22:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Same university campus, perhaps? --James
      • Or corporate MAN? Anyway, here is a post from home just to make it official. Still doesn't change my WNY opinion. And I have addressed your anonymity issues. - BBH

• Lake effect snow isn't a phrase. It's a verifiable natural phenomenon. Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete local nonsense. sjorford →•← 15:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon Steelcage Matches

No potential to become encyclopedic. Should be deleted. --Plainsong 06:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Try not to forget that there are billions of people in the world who have never heard of a Steelcage Match, much less a Cartoon Steelcage Match. A cartoon Steelcage Match is an excercise in creativity, and an excellent example of Random Mootness.

• Delete, wikipedia is not a place for promoting new ideas, no matter how random or moot they are. Kappa 07:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not original research per say... maybe original hallucination. Feco 07:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not describe reality Dsmdgold 10:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, not up to encyclopaedic standards. Megan1967 04:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 01:00, 13 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. jni 19:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Up, down, left, right, A, B, C, Start

This is the cheat code for the Sonic the Hedgehog video game. Gamecruft. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it was me, I wouldn't have even made it a vfd. Looks like a speedy delete to me. Sholtar 06:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hedgehogcruft. Nothing here that does not go better on the main page for the game. Notice I didn't say Merge, tho. -- 8^D ^gab 06:52, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a list of cheats. Martg76 08:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Usually I am very liberal with keeping "fancruft" but this is going a bit far. Sjakkalle 11:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete though it seems reasonable that cheats might warrant a mention in their game's article, but not their own article. Also, unlikely that anyone would search for this (why look it up if they already know the button sequence?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I have nothing against gamecruft, but this is taking it too far, a mention in a game article is fine, though. Delete or merge with Sonic article if needed. I agree with Starblind. Mgm|^(talk) 14:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Unencyclopedic by title, plus WP:WIN GameFaqs. Delete. Radiant_* 16:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Sonic the Hedgehog, no need to redirect. — JIP | Talk 18:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT. --InShaneee 19:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with sonic the hedgehog, or delete if that doesn;t work. Howabout1 22:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• C, B, A, right, left, down, up, Delete with chainsaw or flamethrower or the most destructive tool available. Gamecruft of non-encyclopedic nature although it's one of the least-secret "secret cheats" ever. Barno 02:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamescruft. Megan1967 04:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge because Wikipedia is not GameFAQS. Dave the Red (talk) 05:31, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• All these consoles have so boring cheat codes. Back in the day of computers, we used to have codes like MOTHERFUCKENKIWIBASTARD, WHAT A NICE CHEAT, IHATEBROS or KARENBROADHURST. I myself wrote a game with a cheat code over two thousand characters long, but no one's ever heard of it. — JIP | Talk 20:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I could have swore it was Up, Down, Left, Right, A, Start anyway. Xezbeth 20:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Up, down, left, right, left, right, PageUp, Home, Insert, Delete. Chris talk back 23:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• {{speedy}} Pavel Vozenilek 01:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Alai 05:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andre (talk) 18:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn gamecruft. ComCat 06:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hui Chun Kit

Not a speedy deletion candidate. Not sure of notability. No vote.-gadfium 06:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I couldn't get any google hits for this, so I'd say delete as unverifiable and possible attack page. Kappa 07:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Such an arrest would've made internet news, Last line suggests attack. Delete unless verified and NPOVed. Mgm|^(talk) 14:42, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, not notable, possible personal attack. Megan1967 04:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if it's not bull, it's Chinese political propaganda. DDerby 10:05, 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 delete. [5] —Korath (Talk) 03:27, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farhan

Not encyclopedic. Possibly vanity? Delete. --Plainsong 06:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd say speedy delete, in my opinion it's patent nonsense. Unless I'm missing something, of course. Sholtar 06:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not that I can see.  :^) Speedy delete. This guy's been warned before. - Lucky 6.9 07:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tudor Jenkins

• Delete - vanity? / insult? / trash? / vandalism? - gren 06:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All of the above. Google turns up a few hundred hits on a real Jenkins, who is clearly not this person, and is also not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Methinks this is mere coincidence. -- 8^D ^gab 08:17, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible personal attack. Megan1967 04:08, 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 settlement via copyvio (WP:CP). - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Columbine Redemption

Delete - This is cut and paste from the website linked in the article...advertising/NPOV/possible copyvio -- Plasmatics 07:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see what's "possible" about it. It's a copy&paste from an article published on a web-site, which is by default copyrighted and which is not explicitly licensed with a GFDL-compatible copyright licence, and is a copyright violation. This should have gone directly to WP:CP. Copyvio. Uncle G 12:03, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright vio, advert/promo. Megan1967 04:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - even leaving aside copyright issues, it's nonfactual and violates NPOV. This is just a retelling of the Columbine "shot for being Christian" urban legend. Firebug 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean finch

Vanity. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fü Productions also. Xezbeth 08:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--AYArktos 09:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A similar version was speedily deleted earlier. The deleted version read "Finch is the creator of Fü Pie, and goes by PsychoPop on the KoL forums.The forums are located at http://forums.kingdomofloathing.com" -- It seems this might be less about Sean Finch and more about linkspam. SWAdair | Talk 10:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, people who frequent forums aren't encyclopedia material. If they are, I demand my own entry. :) Mgm|^(talk) 14:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I actually speedied this once or twice as vanity before calling it a night. Author recreated it while I napped, it seems. – ClockworkSoul 17:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:10, 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 03:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sensitron

• Restored from speedy. It was recreated. It was deleted according to the previous vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sensitron. IMO the vote was done without due diligency. The company has HUGE number of gioogle hits. On the other hand, the number of voters was IMO insufficient to justify deletion. Their reasons are poorly grounded: "advertising". The article states mere facts and has no hype. Mikkalai 08:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (Rl 12:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • The "HUGE number" of Google hits are for other companies with the same name.
  • During the previous VfD, the creator of the article removed the VfD notice, voted under a wrong name, and blanked the VfD page. I am not really ecstatic about giving him a stage once more.
  • FWIW, the article that I remember from the previous VfD read a lot more like a sales pitch.
    • Yes, probably the original version. But the deleted one was basically like this one. Mikkalai 22:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• copyvio/advert from [6] speedy delete DDerby 13:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete again as noted, the respectable Google hits are for other companies. A search for their one and only product (at least, the only one mentioned in the article) brings 67 unique Google hits link and they have a very low current Alexa ranking of 4,189,365. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete again; if you think the original deletion was unfounded, shouldn't this be on WP:VFU instead? Radiant_* 16:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as re-creation of material previously voted for deletion. Mikkalai, please list on VfU if you believe the VfD process was improper. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, at least this vote is talking more seriously than the previous one, so I will not go for VfU. Mikkalai 22:09, 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 speedy delete. [7] —Korath (Talk) 03:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shazza Typing

Self-promotion of User:Shazza, no encyclopedic relevance. andy 08:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This should be speedied. Shazza is a repeat vandal. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JSP (Internet Celebrity)

NN, vanity. This article has already a fairly long and rocky edit history. Let's put it out of its misery. Rl 09:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Though it does get bonus points for trying to claim someone as an "internet celebrity" even without a current website. Obviously JSP (being the Javascript file extension) and 665 (being a common number) are hard to Google, but a search for JSP +665 +vampire turned a handful of results but none relevant to the article subject within at least the first 5 pages. I'm not sure whether the allegedy-popular 665 website was located at 665-dot-com or not, but if it was, it hasn't been in the Alexa top 100,000 for at least 2 years, according to Alexa. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note/update: According to DS, the website in question is sixsixfive.com, which has a current Alexa rank of 483,063, and hasn't been in the top 100,000 for at least the past two years (older data not available, but likely similar). Better than nothing, I guess, but not nearly enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not JavaScript, it's Java Server Pages, which is a completely different thing (being written in another language, and being server-side rather than client-side). — JIP | Talk 04:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right... and I knew that too, I dunno where my head was at. In any case, the underlying statement is true, that being a common file extension, JSP's notability cannot be determined by a simple Google search. It's like if someone was nicknamed "MP3" or "HTML". You might get tons of results, but very few (if any) relevant ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• According to googlism, 665 is a "great site", "my favorite website", "an expressway spur into the city of annapolis", and is "affiliated with the international brotherhood of teamsters". Do not delete. 60.240.140.20 19:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Eh, there was (and still is) a lot of funny, very readable stuff at sixsixfive.com, but I wouldn't have deemed it (or the creator) notable. Delete. DS 14:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote had been vandalised. I have restored it to the original version. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I trust Starblind's assessment. Delete, unless proof surfaces. Mgm|^(talk) 14:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• JSP is more notable than Fat Controller. Do not delete.
• JSP, while as elusive as the dew on morning flowers, permeates the internet consciousness. He came up with the idea of chat pranks. DO NOT DELETE
• Delete, and someone hurry up with adding an extra speedy case for blatant vanity. Chris 00:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unsigned-sockish-supported vanity; "He came up with the idea of chat pranks" triggers my lameness filter severely. VfD debate so far suggests that this person's current or future "celebrity" significance is "as elusive as the dew on morning flowers". Barno 03:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote had been vandalised. I have restored it to the original version. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. JSP was the originator of the "Hampster Dance."
• Delete as vanity supported by talking hosiery. - Lucky 6.9 06:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For your information, I have spoken with JSP about this controversy. He is extremely unhappy that he is included on this website because he feels he is too famous and important. I told him that Winston Churchill and Stryper had articles too, but he wouldn't listen. KEEP
• Delete, vanity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Everyone knows who JSP is. His fame reaches far and wide. An internet dictionary just isn't complete without a JSP entry.
• Do not delete. JSPs ghostly internet presence was a runner up for beatification by the dearly departed pope JPII as the patron saint of the internet. Do not desecrate his memory with your rash and ill-considered plans. I must say that I find this kind of despoilment completely typical of the bearded and slovenly inhabitants of the internets. I pray that you know not what you do.
  • The above by User:203.45.168.124. RickK 08:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sock puppet limit has been reached. RickK 07:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The hampster dance comments seem to have merit, and I doubt JSP (Internet Celebrity) is responsible for the support of the entry.
  • You only get to vote once, User:67.188.68.113. But be advised that anonymous votes are generally not counted. RickK 08:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • RickK, maybe you should double check the IP addresses. I did not make the comment above. I have not voted twice. I corrected your comment as to who really wrote it. It took me 3 tries initially due to some errors in my link. (User 67.188.68.113)
      • You're right, I apologize. I misread the diff. RickK 08:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Webmaster and blogger without a website? popular with the vampire community? WTF? Seems to be popular with the sockpuppet community. jni 13:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep JSP is in a PSV, in this state he could not possibly be creating a 'vanity' entry. This entry must remain to show why 665 stopped updating several years ago. Like Terri Schiavo, we cannot allow his memory to be erased; We cannot give up hope!
  • Remark by User:67.115.122.75, user's first edit. Kill the socks!
• Delete - utter nonsense supported by sockpuppets only- Skysmith 07:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, extreme vanity. Radiant_* 08:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too obscure for Internet celebrity. Grue 06:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and more socks than a dresser drawer. DDerby 10:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Xezbeth 18:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Covenvox

Article up for deletion because it seems to be an advert for a small website, that doesn't pass the google test. It's also not really encyclopedic and not notworthy. Oliver Keenan 09:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete bandity, about 100 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity, website promo. Megan1967 04:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Xezbeth 19:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] A Terrible Revenge

This is nothing but an advertisement for a booktitel of a "historian" known for very revisionist positions in Germany. Has nothing to do with NPOV, has nothing to do with serious enquiry of Prussian history. The information about this book belongs to some other place, f.e. "Ethnic policies at the end of World War II" or something like that. There you could discuss the book and name it among others, but not alone like this.

Therefore, I suggest to delete this article (which does not deserve the name). Jesusfreund 11:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep real book, is on Amazon (sales rank ~20,000) in an English translation. Without addressing the issue of whether the material in the book is morally or factually correct (which is not our purpose anyway) it's definitely a real book and would have an article. Needs cleanup though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real books. Kappa 13:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --ST ○ 20:49, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Keep, and edit to ensure it's NPOV. RickK 22:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 04:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the article on the author, which is still very short. Break out later if needed. / Uppland 07:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously the book is sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. If you think the article about the book is POVed, e.g. does not mention any critique of the book, you can fix it. The book itself doesn't have to be NPOV--Wikimol 11:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! It is just one book from Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, so it would be enough to name it in this article. Krtek76 11:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep !!!--Schlesier 13:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Ot 14:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Xezbeth 16:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonable stub. Capitalistroadster 16:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't help but notice that all the Delete voters so far are German. Was this article recently deleted on the German Wikipedia or something? Xezbeth 20:50, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Re. User:Schlesier is more german than any other on this page. -83.129.28.50 01:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• How can someone be more German than somebody else? Schlesier is also the guy who wants us to change Warsaw to Warschau on some specious argument that it was a German city. On the other hand, keep this article, whether you agree with the book or the author, it does no harm to have an article which discusses it in an NPOV manner. RickK 01:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not all books are notable, and this article does not establish notability. I'm not German Dsmdgold 02:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

  Ad notability. The book has 1k+ Google hits, 22 reviews and #21,989 sales rank at Amazon, and is cited in normal academic press. Also it seems to be quite popular among neo-nazis / revizionists. --Wikimol 11:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The book is being discussed. It is reasonambe to have a summary. It is not an advertisment: the book is old and already known. We have Mein Kampf here after all. If there is a published critique of the book, you are welcome to descibe it. Mikkalai 23:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with author, per Uppland. Radiant_* 09:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with author. CatCrofts 05:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with author. Wojsyl 06:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Various Tri-Rail stations

I'm lumping these all together because I don't want to clutter up VfD with an entry for each of them. at Tri-Rail we have a list of stations, but somebody felt it was necessary to give each station it's own page:

• Miami Airport Station
• Hialeah Market Station
• Metrorail Transfer Station
• Opa-locka Station
• Golden Glades Station
• Hollywood Station Station
• Sheridan Street Station
• Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport Station
• Fort Lauderdale Station
• Cypress Creek Station
• Pompano Beach Station
• Deerfield Beach Station
• Boca Raton Station
• Delray Beach Station
• Boynton Beach Station
• Lake Worth Station
• West Palm Beach Station
• Mangonia Park Station

These pages all follow exactly the same format: Such and such Station is a Tri-Rail commuter rail station in _______, Florida.

The station is located on [...] It opened to service ______.

A park and ride lot is available at this station. (or variation)

Connecting __________ Transit Routes

• ...
• ...

Now, it seems entirely unnecessary to have pages for each of these. The only one that seems at all notable is West Palm Beach Station, which the page notes (without giving any details) is on the National Register of Historic Places. If this particular station is notable, then fine, keep it. None of the others are. Wikipedia is not a directory of transportation information, or of public transportation stops.

Do we really want pages for each and every commuter train stop everywhere in the world? Heck, I could start right now. I live in Stockholm, Sweden--there are two major commuter lines going into town with a total of about 90 stops. Lets put them in! Even better, I can add all the other minor light rail lines, and all the metro stops!

I have no problem with stops that are actually significant (as the West Palm Beach Station may be). But the rest of these are just clutter. Please, delete them all! --Jonathan Christensen 11:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Public institutions are inherently notable and worthy of being in a truly great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 12:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into one article on the tri-rail system. I'm a life-long Miami resident. Please trust me, these "public institutions" are neither notable nor encyclopedic, at least not individually. They are essentially glorified bus stops adjacent to big parking lots. -- 8^D ^gab 13:00, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Keep, train stations are useful for navigation. Kappa 13:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --InShaneee 19:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, let's all navigate with "random page" then. Kappa 20:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BEHOLD!!! I have merged all of the ridiculous itty bitty individual Tri-rail stop articles into the single Tri-Rail article, and it is now EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THE LAYOUT OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM! I'm not denying the utility of listing the train stations (although you may be imagining each of these to be a quaint little rest-stop-type train stations with little cafe, and maybe a newspaper shop, when in fact these are not "stations" and there is nothing there but a really big bus stop), but surely it makes more sense to have all the stops on one page. -- 8^D ^gab 13:33, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Merge a number of stations are already listed at tri-rail in a similar format. DDerby 13:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I just did that. I was in the middle of crowing about it, but we had an edit conflict. C'est la vie. -- 8^D ^gab 13:34, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
    • In light of this successful merge (pats self on back), I would ask Klonimus and Kappa to consider whether this makes more sense to have one big article that covers everything, or 18 tiny ones. -- 8^D ^gab 13:38, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect into the Tri-Rail article. I guess Miami airport station and the one mentioned before are notable enough for their own entries, but only do that if those get significant info added. Mgm|^(talk) 14:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect these silly stubs to Tri-Rail now that they've been merged into a more useful format. Arkyan 15:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well done, 8^D! Organization of information is very important. Radiant_* 15:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Organization is indeed important, but never mind. No change in vote. Kappa 16:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I don't approve of the merger; it's better to give them space to grow. Ah well. Split them out now, or else be prepared to split them out when they grow. Meelar (talk) 16:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Actually the merge has helped organization, but it would still be better as a table, including the town, date, and possibly connections, but without the roads, places of interest, etc. The stations should be separate to keep the roads off the main page, to allow them to grow, and to allow cross-links. Kappa 17:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. Where'd the map go? Kappa 17:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Just out of curiousity, what do Kappa and Meeler think these are going to grow into, especially given the comments of 8^D? I see absolutely no encyclopediac potential for most of them. Anything on the Miami Airport one would probably be better under an article about the Miami Airport, which leaves the only possibly noted one as West Palm Beach. Jonathan Christensen 17:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, there have been a lot of train station articles that have grown into respectable pieces of work--see, e.g., Embankment tube station, or even the slightly-stubbier New York Ave-Florida Ave-Gallaudet U (Washington Metro). There's clearly potential for rail-station articles. Best, Meelar (talk) 02:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • For a few (admittedly cherry-picked) even larger examples, see City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station) and Queensboro Plaza (New York City Subway station). As for these, they may be relatively insignificant, but there's history to them. Some are served by Amtrak. Some were stations long before Tri-Rail came along. --SPUI (talk) 08:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and let merge stand. --InShaneee 19:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep parts of a system, the merge is rather ugly. A table like on Northeast Corridor could be a better way to merge. --SPUI (talk) 22:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect all of them to the Tri-Rail article except for West Palm Beach Station. Being on the NRHP makes it notable. If the info is presented in an ugly way at Tri-Rail, be bold and fix it. Dsmdgold 02:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixing it would mean splitting it back out into separate articles. Kappa 02:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, fixing it would mean making the single article flow more smoothly, Splitting it into separate articles would revert a single, notable, and encyclopedic topic into a bunch of largely un-notable and unencyclopedic pieces with no potentional for growth. -- 8^D ^gab 01:19, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
      • The main article would remain notable and encyclopedic, but it would be free of excessive detail. Kappa 08:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Tri-Rail and redirect, except for West Palm Beach Station. (Break out articles again only when somebody adds something substantial on a station.) / Uppland 07:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Tri-Rail and Metrorail transfer station is on two systems, so merging it anywhere makes no sense. --SPUI (talk) 08:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All public transport infrastructure is notable.--Gene_poole 04:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, shall I do an article on each of the 4,500 stainless steel bus benches in Miami? "The 163rd street and 15th Avenue bench is located at the intersection of 163rd street and 15th Avenue, near the 163rd Street Mall. The bench was replaced in 2004 because of excessive grafitti, just as it has been replaced every year before." ... "The 163rd street and 19th Avenue bench is located at the intersection of 163rd street and 19th Avenue, in front of the U-Haul center." -- 8^D ^gab 19:11, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
    • Knock yourself out! It's all part of the sum of human knowledge, which is what Wikipedia is intended as a repository of. --Gene_poole 02:24, 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 keep as arbitration evidence. If you wish to delete this, please resubmit only afte the case is over. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China

Since User:Instantnood joined Wikipedia, he has consistently tried to change articles relating to China to support his POV. There have been very many discussions, requested moves, requested categories, and a RfC on Instantnood as a result of this. So far he has been unable to establish a majority, let alone a consensus, in support of his proposals. This page is another 25!!!! votes. We don't need this. Please delete this page as it is disruptive to Wikipedia to continue these constant votes when Instantnood does not get his way, jguk 12:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment (non-vote): Please refer to the following sections: #..of China or ..of the PRC → ..of mainland China, #NPOv: China, Mainland China, PRC, ROC, SAR, etc., and #NPOV at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV. While my view is not unanimously supported, jguk's view is not supported by the majority either. Attempts to vote for deletion of these polls is in effect blocking the issue to resolution. — Instantnood 13:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I am against polls like these in principle. The matter can be solved by other means. Inter\^Echo 13:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  These other means have failed. This poll does not have to be binding and can be used as a gauge of the opinions of the community as a whole. -- ran (talk) 16:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

  What other means did you have in mind? A lot of different approaches have been taken already. What would you recommend should be done instead? --MarkSweep 22:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I feel polls like these contribute little to the community. I see that other means have been taken to resolve this and there is also now an Arbcom case. If this case is rejected, I was contacted by Instantnood to try and mediate further. Inter\^Echo 12:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks Inter. I guess many of us are running out of idea. — Instantnood 16:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

  I suppose more options will be available when some of you open up to the idea that the convention itself can be reviewed once again.--Huaiwei 06:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. For the sake of brevity, I have copied and pasted my one post on this purported poll page:

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous - why are we going to look at each individual section instead of conforming to a single, comprehensive naming convention? The individual vote setup makes no sense. In any event, my vote in every instance [would be] to keep China as China (not Mainland China, not the People's Federal Democratic Soviet Socialist Republic of the Nation of China, just ... China). I've been there, the people are nice. The food is great. Bathrooms... not so nice - but did I mention the food? -- 8^D ^gab 13:53, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

• Delete Instantnood cannot run the polls in a non-biased manner. He doesn't announce them, tries to control who votes, and inserts his bias into the announcement. This poll was run through March until the discussion ran out of steam and the talk page got so big it couldn't be edited. This is just an attempt by him to repeat the voting until everyone gets tired of it and he wins. SchmuckyTheCat 14:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did annouce it. I told participants (such as Ran) in the discussion that ran through March the moves would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I announced 5 days ago that I was planning to create this page, and there was no objection. Upon its creation, I put up notices on many pages to notify people. Everybody can vote. Every vote counts, and will be counted. — Instantnood 15:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • If everyone can vote, I would question your habit of soliciting votes. I would even question you notifying anyone that a voting exercise exists, because you are indirectly influencing the voting result. It is up to potential voters to find this page, and it is your duty to ensure they know through unbiased means.--Huaiwei 15:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I try my best to notify as many people, for those who have joined any of the relevant discussions, as possible. Wikipedia is not an authoritarian or oppressive state. Nobody is in a position to have the power to influence the result. Every voters can think independently. By the way, should discussion over the this matter be brought to somewhere else? It's not quite relevant with the VfD. — Instantnood 16:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • When there is evidence that a vote was not properly conducted, there is every reason to point this out in support of its removal. Even the notification of one person is as good as introducing unfairness to the poll, and this does not get justified by notifying more persons. You claim that wikipedia is not an authoritarian or oppressive state, but this dosent mean it is not used by people with authoritarian or oppressive tendencies. Your claim that "nobody is in a position to have the power to influence the result." does not hold, because there is more then enough evidence to show how untrue this is, and all the more when I can show evidence of you doing it. Your past conduct in this site hardly qualifies you as someone who is "unbiased" and capable of conducting a fair poll, reason enough for this page's removal.--Huaiwei 20:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • In what way that the polls are not properly conducted? And am I the one conducting the polls? I created the page when there's no objection, and initiated the polls. And please kindly stop implying that wikipedians can be influenced and are not capable to think, decide and act independently. — Instantnood 21:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have aleady mentioned in detail why it is not properly conducted, and all others who call for its deletion has given even more points to that. Perhaps you might spend some time reading them instead of asking me a well-answered question. Secondly, you started and worded this poll without contribution from anyone else. In that sence, you are the one who is conducting this poll, since you set it up. If it is not you, then who is it? The history page dont lie. You created the page with no objection, because the people who are objecting are not informed of your intentions, and neither do they know of the format of the poll and its wordings used. Your impatience shows. For someone who can make the effort to inform people that the vote is on in their talk pages, I am surprised he cannot do the same when contemplating the idea of coming up with the poll. Last but not least, your repeated discomfort shows when you repeatedly tells me to "stop implying that wikipedians can be influenced and are not capable to think, decide and act independently". Is this an excuse for your vote garnering habits? Is this to justify you dropping notices in people's talk pages when they vote against your favour? Do you feel you are entitled to only ask people who are likely to support your POV to vote because you think they wont be influenced anyway? If you think they wont be influenced, why bother? I said many times...action speaks louder then words, yeah?--Huaiwei 11:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The suggestion to have polls in this way was told (see #1 and #2). It is part of the discussion. I wonder if it is necessary to notify in everyone's personal talk page if I have said something at an article's talk page. And imho it is necessary to ensure the reliability and validity of any poll, and to make sure everyone knows what the matter is. — Instantnood 16:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • Neither of those two "annoucements" mentions that 25 polls will be conducted, and neither did they list out the pages to be voted on. Neither of them discusses the mode of conduct of the poll, and neither of them discusses the wordings and options to be presented. Worse, neither of them actually say in explicit terms that this poll will be conducted at all. I have seen one of them before, and I was still taken by surprise. I do hope you realise we cant always read your mind. Next, your statements above just shows how biased you are. You find it unnecesary to inform people that you have mentioned the likelihood of your conduct of a poll. The next moment, you expect no surprise amongst anyone who sees that poll when you think it neccesary to inform people that the poll is already up. You insist that the poll is "reliable" and "valid"...by informing some people about the poll? You think it neccesary that "everyone" knows what the matter is...what is you definition of "everyone"? If "everyone" is "aware" of the situation at hand, are they allowed to vote against your favour without you dropping messages in their talk pages demanding for a review on their part? Your talkpage is there for all to see. Anyone can see what you are up to.--Huaiwei 06:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and note that there is a WP:RFAr request that deals with this ongoing conflict. Radiant_* 15:25, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Absolute delete. This page came as a complete surprise, an obvious indication that he has certainly not gained consensus in adopting this method to resolve disputes. As I mentioned in the page, this begs questions over the sanctity of all previous rounds of votes, which has thrown up plenty of comments of which hardly any comes close to an agreement. It is the conventions which need a review, and not massive voting exercises like this to establish a political point!--Huaiwei 15:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Proposals to modify the naming conventions should be done separately. If that is successful, the titles of the articles and categories will have to be renamed accordingly, to the revised set of naming conventions. Refer to my response to SchmuckyTheCat's remarks above for "complete surprise". — Instantnood 15:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • And as I mentioned in the other page, you are also saying this voting should take place before the naming conventions becomes a more valid and respectable set of guidelines?--Huaiwei 16:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No I didn't say it. I said the titles should be changed according to the then latest set of conventions, if the conventions is revised. — Instantnood 16:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, and if there is a change in the conventions tomorrow, we are going to have another round of votes of over 25 entries? Think about it. If the conventions are supposed to be respected, why do we need a process like this to enforce the conventions? If there are people protesting these moves despite having read and understood the conventions, do you not think the discussions should be centred over its contents, instead of having to go thru this over and over again, and yet paradoxically facing the possibilities of votes not going in favour of the stated convention? Is it more effective to cure the illness, or its symptoms?--Huaiwei 20:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It depends. If there's no disagreement on whether the naming conventions fit to be applied to an article or a category, what's the point of going on ballot? — Instantnood 21:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • Erm...and so, you are saying the current conventions is fit to be applied?--Huaiwei 11:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • There are many articles and categories nominated to be retitled according to the naming conventions. But some people, while they agree retitling according to the naming conventions, do not agree with retitling one or two, or more, of the articles/categories. And that's why it's necessary to be considered on a case-by-case basis. If everyone agrees that the retitling can be done to all of the articles/categories, then case-by-case assessment won't be necessary. Is that clear? — Instantnood 16:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hence as I mentioned just now, the contradiction is getting obscenely obvious. You now justify this page by saying "some people disagree with some renamings despite conventions". Yet you insisted those who disagree with the conventions will not have their votes counted. Can I say, then, that I agree with the convention, but disagree with what it calls for?--Huaiwei 06:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (non-vote, again): Please be noted that this page is a sub-page of, in other words, part of the talk page of the naming conventions. It was created as a subpage, to prevent the talk page getting huge. — Instantnood 15:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this information, but we can see that from the page title.--Huaiwei 15:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Give it a few days. -- ran (talk) 16:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • As it stands, I am refusing to participate in the voting process because I disagree with the method used. Needless to say, I will not be accepting the voting results either.--Huaiwei 20:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of the dozen pages where "wiki policy" on China/Taiwan naming is being discussed/set/opposed/changed/protested. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds, but in this case, we need more small minds. There's already a forum for consensus on naming, so kill the new one that was created. Feco 19:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. — Instantnood 20:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The idea of a vote is a good one, and we will probably need a Gdansk-like vote. However, first of all there are not enough options (common usage is just "China", this should be offered as an option to "mainland China" and "PRC"), and probably a Taiwan/ROC vote should be held at the same time, for an overall solution. Second, there are also too many options, but the wrong kind: it doesn't seem to make sense to have case-by-case special cases for each of "museums", "transportation", "tourism", etc. and then have to memorize what applies where; there should be some overall universal principle with only a few exceptions (such as for "history", for example). Finally, any vote/survey should be announced well ahead of time, and the exact wording needs to be discussed and hammered out to be as neutral as possible (not just "mainland China, for or against"). -- Curps 01:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, we've already had many, many votes - and each of those shows there is no majority in favour of changing from the status quo, jguk 06:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's the situation as I see it: The naming conventions article that this vote is a subpage of try to specify under what conditions "PRC" and/or "Mainland China" are more appropriate than "China". Some users believe that the naming conventions entail that a significant number of articles should be renamed in order to better conform to those conventions. Others disagree, either because they think the proposed moves do not satisfy the naming conventions, or because they see the results of the moves as violating other policies, or they disagree with the naming conventions. There's been considerable debate already, with no clear results. The naming conventions are arguably the "overall universal principle" you are looking for. In the past on a related topic, several moves were proposed en bloc on WP:RM, which met with opposition, because achieving consensus on a whole set of items is difficult. My own view is that a different approach is needed, one which separates policy making (coming up with naming conventions) from policy implementation (carrying out the requisite moves without any need for additional polls), but I have no idea if that would be feasible or how to go about it. --MarkSweep 07:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There is already an ongoing poll to assess whether each of the Taiwan-/ROC-related articles and categories satisfy the naming conventions. That poll has already suggested that, to some users, although they agree with the moves, they don't think certain pages are satisfied.
    As this is an assessment on whether an item satisfy the conventions, the only option is to stick with the naming conventions, and therefore no alternative option was provided (say, "China") when I created the page.
    On announcement of the poll, please refer to my response to SchmuckyTheCat above. — Instantnood 07:58, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • And there lies the root of the problem. Again we can clearly see you are insisting the convention as it is now must stand at all costs. It is no wonder no one could get any idea through your head, because it is the conention itself which needs a review.--Huaiwei 06:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I am not sure where you get this idea that your proposed vote on Taiwan-related articles revealed any consensus among any users agree with your proposals. Please also make sure that you change your voting standard back to rough consensus to protect the Wikipedia voting standard and not the current simple majority votes standard which favors passing your controversial proposal. Please note that even you claim no objection for your initiation for votes, there is utterly no support for you to initiate a vote like this one being vfd or the one targeting on Taiwan-related articles.--Mababa 03:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • As I have mentioned elsewhere, I did not notice it wasn't >50% majority, by counting number of "support"s and "oppose"s. Change it if it should be rough consensus. It'd be better if it goes through discussion. — Instantnood 07:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • As a participant in this vote initiated by Instantnood, I am realy troubled by this answer. I believe that I deserve a more responsible reply from Instantnood. The rest of my response at here. You have yet respond to my comment on your lack of support for initiating votes and thus these moves are unwarranted, I'll take it as an acquiescence of acknowledging this fact.--Mababa 02:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Instanthood doesn't owe you anything and he's been nothing but forthcoming, honest, and polite with everyone including those who have disagreed with him (which is a lot more than I can say for some people involved in this). I'm going to recommend he not reply to your constant questioning because right now this isn't productive. I'd suggest a Wiki-break and reflection to gain some perspective. --Wgfinley 04:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, concur with Curps. Megan1967 04:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Some meaningful discussion has taken place at the page. If it is voted to be deleted the records of the discussion will be lost. — Instantnood 17:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Protect the page and stop the polls. Keep the page as evidence for Instantnood's Arbitration case. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I second Susvolans's call for protection while arbitrarion is pending. --MarkSweep 20:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment as Instanthood's advocate I also support protecting this page while the case is arbitrated. --Wgfinley 21:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to wiktionary. Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay for the stay

Delete. It's a phrase that does exist admittedly, but it has no educational offering to Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a phrase book.RSieradzki 13:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move to wiktionary minus the Heidi Fless quote --DDerby 14:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or wiktionary. I have heard of this term before. Megan1967 04:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move to wiktionary. Sholtar 04:21, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 19:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xrost.com

Delete. Unadulterated advertising. FreplySpang (talk) 13:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete one of the most obvious ads I've seen here yet. In fact it might even be copied from other ad materials. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - reasons provided by the submitter. --Anonymous Cow 13:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Advert/copyvio from company homepage; delete --DDerby 14:12, 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 20:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahadreck

This article about a rabbi seems non-notable, if not completely fictional. 0 hits on google. --DDerby 14:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Update: author has cleaned up pov and provided name, but that still receives no info from google. Still asking him for support. If none is provided, will ask for deletion of the similar article Creedmoor chassidism.
• Same text has appeared at Mahadrek; I have added a vfd box pointing to this entry. FreplySpang (talk) 20:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto for Creedmoorer; these are all posted by same range of IPs. Added vfd tag pointing here. See also Creedmoor chassidismDDerby 20:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Also note Thoraziner Chassidism --Mike C | talk 19:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Unnoticed was Onan ben Drusoy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Mahadreck is one of the leading Conservative Jewish thinkers of today!
  • First two contributions ever by GreatArcticBear (talk · contribs) are this vote here and a vote at the Creedmore chassidism Vfd. -- Curps 11:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence is provided of his existence and notability. (Giving his real name in addition to his title would be a good start.)If such evidence is provided, the page still needs to be NPOVed. --Angr/_comhrá 16:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The creator tried blanking this page also. Someone might want to take a look at what the anon added at Creedmoor. Xezbeth 17:08, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • reposted the vfd tag. I also just reverted the Creedmoor site, originally a disambig page which the user, from a dynamic IP, posted an antisemitic but factual-sounding article which Mahadreck is related to. DDerby 18:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I assume that, if this relates to some actual person, "Mahadreck" is a pejorative distortion of that person's actual name or title. FreplySpang (talk) 20:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of existence on the Web, Usenet, Jewish encyclopedias and Jewish search engines. Solver 14:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, POV. Megan1967 04:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Ladies and gentlemen, may I invite you to another vote on an article by the same artist? Rl 19:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Creedmoor article is also a hoax. -- Curps 19:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vandalism, hoax. Alai 22:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is more than a hoax. The author of this hoax wrote this as a libellous personal attack. RK 20:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. It's not exactly a personal attack per se, though this particular one is a dig at the Conservative movement. "Mahadreck" stands for "Moreinu HaRav Dreck", or "our teacher the Rabbi Sh*t". This article and the others are the kind of silly stuff people often write for Purim. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - But leave it there till the period for voting is over. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bribble

Was listed as speedy for advertisement, but that is not sufficient reason for speedy. This appears to be a notable open-source chat product. I vote abstain - this should be kept if modified. DDerby 14:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Google disagrees (750 hits, which is below the bar for internet-related things such as chat). Weak delete as such. Radiant_* 09:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. You'd expect a notable chat program to get many google hits; this one doesn't. Article reads like an advertising blurb anyhow. Xezbeth 18:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morten Harper

• Delete. Sufficient notability not established. By same author as Øystein Runde. -- Egil 14:56, 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. —Xezbeth 06:56, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starmen.net

Website about the computer game Earthbound, that has now diverged from the game to become mostly a web community and forum. As such, it has 2800 members and 16 kilogoogles, which doesn't seem particularly impressive for a web community. Feels like vanity, even if written NPOV'ly. Radiant_* 14:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Alexa rank in the 220,000 area. I do want to point out that Earthbound is in my top 5 or so games of all time, and anyone who's never played it definitely should. Also, I like the fact that this article contains a decently-sized criticism section, so it's pretty NPOV as forum articles go. As much as I love the subject matter, though, it shouldn't stay. Delete, gently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sort of notable fan site (if I remember correctly) but not worthy of an article. --Anonymous Cow 15:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep actually an important part of the game's culture, this site started a petition to get Earthbound 64 released, and actually recieved a response from the game's creator. merge if you must. --InShaneee 19:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge sort-of notable fan sites. Kappa 21:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 04:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Meelar (talk) 16:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyking 22:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was a former member of this community (leaving in about 2000 or 2001), and a huge EarthBound fan. So maybe I'm a bit biased. That said, I do think Starmen.Net is notable in that the fanbase it represents is much more fanatical, and probably more wide, than can be said for most other games of the popularity of EarthBound. The Mother 3 petition is particularly notable as has been noted on a previous VfD attempt that is listed on the talk page. sm.net has been mentioned in several magazines (which the site has its own page about), which probably cannot be said for any other fansite about a game with the same popularity level as EarthBound (were it not for this fanatical fanbase, the game may well have been regarded as a failure). I think sm.net is notable when attributes such as these are taken into consideration. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and shame on people who insist on Alexa rankings for notability. A site doesn't have to be popular to be notable, though it helps. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Besides, haven't we already gone through this? It's almost as if someone is out to get this page deleted... --SMWhat 18:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 13:21, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lum the Mad

Blogger and web game commentator that scores 780 googles. Seems pretty non-notable to me. Note that Lum the Mad is also a semi-important fictional character on the D&D Greyhawk world, so my suggestion would be to delete the current content and redirect there. Radiant_* 14:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. During the first heyday of MMORPGs Lum was one of the major, or perhaps the major, commentator on the scene. His opinion was courted by the MMORPG companies, which lead to the classic "I Will Taxi To Victory" document, a log of Lum's reactions while beta-testing World War II Online. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Notable games commentator. Megan1967 04:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the abovementioned reasons. DS 22:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps THE main voice for MMOG commentary for several years.TPRJones 11:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lum the Mad helped shape much of the current philosophy on MMOG design, and he doesn't even use a gratuitous rainbow-colored nickname. I see no evidence of vanity in this entry.Einer 11:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Started out just keeping the occasional notes on games and game play when the MMOG industry was in its infancy (UO) and as it grew to encompass several major games and companies. The site spawned the phrase "We fear change", as well, I believe, and was a non-corporate-controlled spot where some serious discussion and useful mocking of the industry, its people, and its flaws could take place, and did take place. Mynn the unpretenious single color signature poster with a pretentiously long explaination about it 14:01, 21 Apr 2005 (EDT)
• Keep as cited above. Lum was the one who started what would now be called a blog re: MMOGs and was ahead of his time. RasputinAXP 22:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Was an extremly relevant commentator at the start of MMORPGs popularity. Whether it's vanity or not seems irrelevant to me. The information is factual.Neep 10:32, 22 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 20:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rock baby games

Results 1 - 5 of 5 for "Rock baby games". It even states they're "underground" and use "Macromedia Flash." What makes them notable compare to thousands of groups that make Macromedia Flash-based games. --Anonymous Cow 15:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• 'Delete not notable. Oliver Keenan 15:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

An anon user from the same IP as the page's creator just blanked the page. Avocado 18:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not different from millions of people making games. Mgm|^(talk) 21:02, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Lets do them a favor and let them stay underground. --Asriel86 01:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 03:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kerry Warner

67.66.60.180 is trying to spread false information regarding Christina Christian. I'm not an American Idol fan. I tried to search about Christina Christian being "dead." No information regarding being dead. "Christina Christian" with "Kerry Warner" had ZERO results. You would think the U.S. media likes to report on celebrities and will report on it if an American Idol contestant was MURDERED. --Anonymous Cow 15:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete this deliberate misinformation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, 67.66.60.180 has quite a history of vandalism, see User talk:67.66.60.180 for some info. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied and blocked anon again. Mgm|^(talk) 21:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punch My Crotch

Pure dicdef, with, I think, no potential for growth. Has been transwikied already (see Wiktionary:Transwiki:Punch My Crotch). Needs to be deleted. --Dmcdevit 16:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dic def. Mgm|^(talk) 21:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Punch article creator 24.220.78.66's crotch, er, I mean, delete as dicdef without potential for encyclopedic expansion, already transwikied. Barno 03:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons DDerby 01:21, 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 redirect

[edit] Sabir language

Someone's boilerplate. Salvaged from CAT:CSD. Mikkalai 08:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No useful information, delete DDerby 17:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Lingua franca. I added the useful bit from here (the Ethnologue link) to that article. Chris Johnson 20:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed the same langauage as the one discussed on the bottom of the Lingua franca page. I guess I put up this template and then totally forgot about it. I'm way too busy to work on it now, so deletion + redirect is fine with me. John

Redirect to Lingua franca, I guess, although I'd prefer to have Lingua franca be a disambiguation for the common noun meaning auxiliary language, the Mediterranean pidgin (which should be at Lingua Franca language in spite of the redundancy), and the magazine (which should be at Lingua Franca (magazine). If that happens, Sabir language should redirect to Lingua Franca language. --Angr/_comhrá 16:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Underwhelming

This is just a dicdef of the word. I can't see any potential for growth here, or any necessary redirects. It has been transwikied (Wiktionary:Transwiki:Underwhelming) and should now be deleted.--Dmcdevit 16:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete, not a real thing, can't see any potential for growth. Kappa 17:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete underwhelming dic defs. Mgm|^(talk) 21:13, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 20:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intersubjectivity

• del. Yet another original research in deQuinceanism (or simply copyvio from here) by User:Christian de Quincey who may or may not be Christian de Quincey. , in addition to Kinds of subjectivity, also under VfD. Mikkalai 16:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete Original research DDerby 18:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• comment - I think that intersubjectivity is a notable topic in various psychological, philosophical and pedagogical schools of thought, and there could be a good article here, but I don't feel qualified to write it. FreplySpang (talk) 12:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Intersubjectivity is certainly an encyclopedic topic, but this article looks problematic. - Mustafaa 07:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arlism

It's probably a vanity article, about high-school-pupils' nonsense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity and nonsense. Commander 17:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Anonymous Cow 17:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete arling vanity. Dsmdgold 02:21, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense, vanity neologism. Megan1967 04:27, 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 speedy delete. [8] —Korath (Talk) 03:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsuspecting People

It's unencyclopædic, and doesn't even warrant a Wiktionary entry. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (just to make it clear). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• One of three articles posted in a short period about what appears to be a non-notable, not-yet-produced amateur film. delete DDerby 17:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Wrong capitalization, no useful info. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 8th element youth outreach

Non-notable religious mission (it was tagged for speedy deletion, but I've removed that, and brought it here). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Many religious ministries may be notable, but not this one. Paradiso 19:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Dsmdgold 02:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, ad. VladMV ٭ ^talk 22:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional tool. Zechenia

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Byzantine art. Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Globus cruciger

This page was transwikied, Wiktionary:Transwiki:Globus cruciger, and now it's still pure dicdef. Doubt any potential for growth and I can't see any viable redirects: delete.--Dmcdevit 17:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep real things. Also, this could be expanded to discuss its history and usage, and if there were any real ones or they just existed on coins etc. Kappa 17:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect: could be an interesting tidbit to add to Roman Emperor or something like Byzantine art (whichever artistic period it's most closely associated with). Avocado 17:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with that, merge, Radiant_* 22:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm... I could have thought this one out better. I guess I see the merge reasoning, but I honestly thought that a redirect would be pointless as unless this object actually plays a noticeable part in the article it is redirected to, it is disorienting to the searcher. That's why I thought a redirect wouldn't accompish much, but I suppose there may be some reason. --Dmcdevit 23:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that a redirect woudn't accomplish much, but it's better than a complete gap in wikipedia's coverage. Kappa 01:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose that'll be fine, but I would want to make sure it redirects to an art page, maybe Byzantine art if it's the right place, because it would be much more relevant to art than Roman emperor. P.S.: I think you should change your catch phrase from "keep real things" to "keep tangible things," isn't that what you mean? :) --Dmcdevit 01:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Byzantine art. Megan1967 04:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dodge The Tomato!

also: Billy Wilson also: Danny Praznosky also: Amy Wilson

Four of a number of articles posted in a short period about what appears to be a non-notable, not-yet-produced amateur film. DDerby 17:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Update: he's acting more mature and now as User:Gadgetfusin. Definitely userfy. DDerby 20:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No sign of notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all four. Vanity, non-notable. --InShaneee 20:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unproduced amateur films and related articles. Mgm|^(talk) 21:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope these kids realize that what they're planning on doing is assault. RickK 22:08, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and a waste of good tomatoes. Dsmdgold 02:19, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them, not notable, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes this isnt. Megan1967 04:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "No sign of notability.", "I hope these kids realize that what they're planning on doing is assault.", "not notable and a waste of good tomatoes.". This aricle deserves deletion, but what kind of boring old people are you? This is people getting tomatoes thrown at them! Who cares if it's an assault as long as they don't actually hurt someone? NO ONE! This is a funny little film made by some kids! Lighten up! Of course it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia, but seriously; get a sense of humor. User:the_strategy_freakUser talk:the_strategy_freak 17:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You really think the people who get tomatoes thrown at them will consider it a harmless prank? If it were me, I'd have the kids and their parents down at the police station immediately. Also, it would be illegal to show the people's faces without written releases. RickK 21:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't understand, tomatoes are meant to be set in the window until the reach the perfect color and then sliced and eaten lightly salted. Anything else is a waste. Except possibly really good pasta sauce. Dsmdgold 22:47, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, film is not yet released (probably not yet filmed) and not on IMDB. -- Curps 00:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Amateur film. Not on IMDB. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity bordering on sheer stupidity if this is for real. RickK summed it up best. I like Dsmdgold's thought also. I know I wouldn't be my usual cheery and pleasant self if I got an unexpected tomato in the moosh. The thrower would be dealing with one very large and very angry Italian. You know those laproscopic cameras that go where no one really wants to go? 'Nuff said about their gear. - Lucky 6.9 06:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The creator now is a registered user. Userfy? DDerby 21:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete complete and utter vanity. Non-encyclopaedic nonsense.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CNBC - MSN MoneyII

Article about a single chat room on MSN Money. We don't even have an article about MSN Money itself. Not encyclopedic. This article was also created as link spam for some emoticon web site. Rhobite 17:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Anonymous Cow 17:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --DDerby 18:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is not spam. The list of emoticons is used to help users find the emoticons, even if the article is incomplete. The link is not to promote any products or services on the referenced site. It's used to find a complete list of emoticons that can't be found on Microsoft Web sites. And just because there's no MSN Money article, that doesn't mean that the article or articles that link there have to be deleted. Whether it's "encyclopedic" or not is subjective. If you don't like the topic, just don't read the article. Do not delete --User:2005-04-08T13:18Z
• Delete. Chat rooms are not encyclopedic and it does look like spam for the linked emoticon web site. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've removed the spam, but that doesn't make the article's subject any more notable. android↔talk 20:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as chat-room-cruft. — JIP | Talk 20:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Related website may deserve an article - a short mention of the chat room can be put there. But chat rooms certainly don't deserve their own articles. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 21:20, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Radiant_* 22:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dsmdgold 02:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. Megan1967 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Mgm. VladMV ٭ ^talk 22:04, 13 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) 03:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Highstead Arboretum

non notable stub. --Jonathan Christensen 17:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, judging by google, it's the #1 arboretum in Redding, Connecticut. And judging by the article, it's the only interesting thing in the area... Kappa 18:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I know several people whose gardens are more notable. And Kappa, how many other arboretums are there in Redding, Connecticut? --Halidecyphon 18:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not sure, is that relevant? Kappa 19:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess I just meant that it's not particularily notable for something to be "the #1" when there's only one... --Halidecyphon 19:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think uniqueness is also a good test of notability. Incidentally, it appears to be the #3 arboretum in Connecticut after Connecticut College Connecticut College Arboretum and the Bartlett Arboretum, followed closely by the Dinosaur State Park arboretum. Kappa 20:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The third best arboretum in Conneticut? I will refrain from sarcastic comment... I guess once someone writes articles on the first two, i'll consider changing my vote. Halidecyphon 20:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually I found that Connecticut College Arboretum is already there. Kappa 20:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Possibly just above the bar for notability. Might be more encouraged by some expansion. (Trust me, I'm the number one 'Shane' in Villa Park).
• Keep They seem to do some publishing as well. Rx StrangeLove 21:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meelar (talk) 01:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep.DS 01:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Third best arboretum in Conneticut makes it notable in my book. Dave the Red (talk) 05:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Redding, Connecticut and delete - Skysmith 07:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would you want to delete and not redirect? Kappa 10:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable enough that it may be useful for some.CatCrofts 05:12, 14 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. Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Märklin print run

Original research/non-encyclopedic content. DDerby 18:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Lee Hunter 18:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Author notes

These print run details may seem trivial or academic but is is useful for people who are trying to date their Märklin collections. I know the information is not very complete but a group of us hope to be filling in the gaps..

• Keep --User:DaleSchultz
  • Perhaps it would be more helpful on your own website, with a link from Märklin DDerby 18:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I merged a mention of this into the main Märklin page. Now I vote to delete the current page. I like DDerby's suggestion. FreplySpang (talk) 19:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with Freply. Delete Link to outside source on this would be helpful. (Note: Never use the word I in an article. :) ) Mgm|^(talk) 21:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Author: OK Zap it, I fixed the print run stuff in the main entry and when that page grows I'll probbaly move the collecting chunk to its own page and take the print run stuff with it.

--Dale Schultz 22:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. [9] —Korath (Talk) 03:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Sokolov

Obscene vanity DDerby 19:37, 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 03:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Ho Cheung

Vanity, deleted previously per vfd, see this vote's history. Posted his article to this vote. DDerby 19:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If something has previously been deleted through vfd, you can tag it as speedy delete. See wp:csd. Best, Meelar (talk) 20:25, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kieron Gillen

Vanity; probably notable if entry is cleaned up DDerby 19:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think he'd be notable even if this was well-written (as is, it's not in terrible shape); all I can tell from this is that he's another game reviewer for a magazine. It doesn't even list what comics he's written, which makes me suspect this information wouldn't tip the balance either. Delete, although I might add that you usually wouldn't bring a page here unless you thought that either the subject didn't deserve an article, or else the page had no useful content. Vfd isn't cleanup. But no harm done. Best, Meelar (talk) 20:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless there is some further indication of notability. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:54, 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 (no consensus to delete). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Pwnage

Internet 'TV show' made by two college students. Non-notable vanity. --InShaneee 19:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless some evidence of notability is produced. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article merely states that this exists, rather than why it is notable. An internet 'TV show' is something rather easy to do if you can be bothered, so not automatically notable. Average Earthman 21:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete. anyone can produce their own show, like average earthman said, and their is no proof that this show is wildly popular. -anonymous IP user
• Advertising. I agree with the above. Delete. (Naming a section "review" should give a hint). Mgm|^(talk) 21:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert/promo. Megan1967 04:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ego stroking self promotion. Unsigned vote by 67.140.145.26 (talk · contribs), who has five edits, only one of which is not to the article or to this VfD.
• Don't delete, compared to topics like "badger badger badger" pure pwnage really deserves an article as it's a very professional show compared to many many others on the internet. Unsigned vote by Mtoman (talk · contribs), whose only edit is this vote.
• Keep. Skimming google, it appears that this show is very well-covered on gaming websites. I'm not completely convinced it belongs, but it's an edge case and as a matter of principle I believe edge cases should be included. Demi ^T/_C 04:01, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion:
  • The article is a stub with potential. (See Deletion policy - table 'Problems that don't require deletion')
  • It is related to precedent: Is some Internet culture encyclopedic? - Yes. Gaming and Internet culture are quite intimately related, and this is apparent from the video series itself.
  • As Mtoman pointed out (in the unsigned vote above, nevertheless), the subject of this article is somewhat related to Red vs Blue.
  • The article might presently be seen as a Vanity page, however, as I pointed out above, the article is still a stub and is in need of expansion. As for the claims of 'non-notability', please see Does lack of fame a vanity article make?. Pure Pwnage (the video series) is primarily about gamers and the gaming subculture, however, since it is a parody, it can appeal to a much wider audience. (e.g. see Pure Pwnage Episode 2: Girls)
  • This is NOT a personal attack, merely a statement of fact. The VfD tagger has not viewed the video series that is the subject of this article (excerpt from #wikipedia on FreeNode, times are GMT +08:00):
    • Apr 11 12:02:09 <eleusis> InShaneee: have you watched the pure pwnage series?
    • [...]
    • Apr 11 12:02:21 <InShaneee> eleusis: can't say I have.
    • Apr 11 12:02:27 <eleusis> ok
  • As such, I believe the VfD listing is based on simple assumption relating to the current length of the article, rather than its potential. I also believe that InShaneee would not have VfD'd this article had he seen the video series, considering that he is familiar with the Red vs Blue series, and would have been aware of the parallels:
    • Apr 11 12:03:58 <eleusis> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_vs_Blue) is related to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Pwnage) in that it's a video/animation series published on the web, and that they're both about gaming
    • [...]
    • Apr 11 12:04:07 <eleusis> i don't see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_vs_Blue) getting vfd'd
    • Apr 11 12:04:40 <InShaneee> eleusis: I love red vs. blue.
  • Answering other VfD voters' concerns:
    • The present form of the article does not make its notability apparent - as I pointed out, the article is still a stub in need of expansion.
    • The popularity of the video show is mostly irrelevant: Does lack of fame a vanity article make?.
    • The article is not simply promotion. For example, a term that is often used without explanation in the video series is 'Uber Micro'. This article is properly linked to explain this term.
    • Labelling this article as 'Advertising' because of the presence of a 'Review' section is irrelevant. This 'review' was not NPOV (negatively biased against the content of the video series) and was added by an anonymous user from IP 67.140.145.26. This review was removed by another anonymous user from IP 24.3.104.7, but then reverted back by 67.140.145.26. Notice that the anonymous user from 67.140.145.26 has also posted a Delete vote on this page. The review has since been moved to the Talk page.
  • In summary, I believe that Pure Pwnage has good potential for growth, being a good example of a Webisode. (The webisode article doesn't exist yet, try google for definitions and other examples. IMO, a webisode is a more general concept than a webcomic - something that Red vs Blue is classified as.) As evident from the article presently, the video series is relevant to the gamer subculture. However, a wider audience should be able to relate to the content of the video series, as it is a parody of gamers, not simply an obscure gamer-related publication.

Eleusis 06:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Extreme Inclusion - Bah you deletionists Burgundavia 06:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I LOLed AngryParsley 06:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm glad that Eleusis made a clear explanation, but unfortunately I don't find it particularly convincing. The article is conceivably vanity since it is written by people involved with the show. That is, of course, debatable as always, but it is valid grounds for voting. "Red vs Blue" gets over ten times as many google hits as "Pure Pwnage". Thus it does not follow that Pwnage is 'famous' simply because it is 'similar'. And it is pretty easy to create whatever kind of site on the net; Wikipedia is not a web directory. So I'd have to agree with the delete voters above. Radiant_* 09:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that this article was written by, or has had most (or even, any) of its contributions coming from the cast or crew of Pure Pwnage, or anyone else affiliated with (read: helps run, or promotes) purepwnage.com. I was not implying that Pure Pwnage is as famous as Red vs Blue, merely that they were both parodies of the gaming subculture, and were both published in the form of 'webisodes'. (Indeed, I stated that fame is mostly irrelevant) Eleusis 09:47, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Well known movie. Grue 06:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, the videos are unprofessionaly made. If they were a band they wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia. Also Alexa rank of 138,580. bbx 12:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The band that half of Internet knows about would certainly be accepted on Wikipedia. Similarly, an Internet phenomenon that is Pure Pwnage certainly deserves a mention in Wikipedia. The "vanity" argument is ridiculous in this case. Alexa rank for something that you can download from a dozen of sites and torrents is not very relevant too. Grue 14:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Take a look at http://www.onestat.com/aspx/reports.aspx?nav=i. I feel that the videos are popular enough and of a level of professional quality to be included in wikipedia. If the first episodes don't fit your definition of "quality" you should also watch the newer ones.Walton Simons
• 'DEFINITLY' Keep Pure Pwnage is a sure example of artistic view and knowledge of the mind of pro gamers, along with comedy and information. It definitely should stay up as a source of information for the fans, like me, and many others. Unsigned vote by 24.156.25.92 (talk · contribs), who has only one edit.
• Keep: This article is educational. It educates people on gamer culture as does the show. There is no self-promotion here, this article was produced by those that were enlightened by the show and feel a deep sense of satisfaction from the education they have received from the show. Unsigned vote by 82.133.100.157 (talk · contribs), who has just two edits.
• Keep the show is a comedy but nevertheless a well made non-vulgar view into the world of gamers. Though not the best role model for kids, it is interesting to keep the article in the condition that it is kept in a good level of writing. -- Faerun 18:25, 19 Apr 2005

Faerun (talk · contribs) has three edits, all to the article or to this VfD.

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, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Americophilia

Delete. Dicdef; has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see the talk page). Talrias (t | e | c) 19:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dic defs. Mgm|^(talk) 21:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete definition Dsmdgold 02:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - as the author, I agree that it belongs as a dictionary entry unless someone can provide scholarly references to it and expand on the concept. I created the entry because it showed up on the Requests list and I had five minutes to spare. Brendano 13:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as author says. Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 13 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 delete. – ABCD 01:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Le

About a 12 year old, clearly not notable. <KF> 19:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Now it is marked as Speedy Delete since the original author just blanked it. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. At last check, author had cleared out VfD notice. Someone else flagged it speedy delete per "blanked by author" rule. Suspect this is a troll who may cause more probs. See also Mirrda for similar behavior by same IP addy. Feco 20:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And deleted. Some people seem to have too much time at their disposal. <KF> 20:04, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock(s) finder

Hoax article about a device that supposedly locates missing socks by "nano-tags" and GIS locators. Delete or BJAODN. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• fiction presented as fact - delete DDerby 20:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Dames

Delete IP 213.100.120.54 is Ed Dames. He is using Wiki for shameless commercial self promotion. The bio is a simple copy and paste from his website. Wiki is not here to boost book sales, sell private tuition courses, or provide vanity spots for people like Ed Dames. Oh I forgot, Ed is now trying to flog DVDs off his website. Add that to the list. Timharwoodx 20:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Remote viewing teachers may be notable, but if this article is copied from his website it's a copyvio. If he's posting himself it's advertising. Delete and make room for a real article. Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Either way, its a black and white violation of terms. Note the links to the commercial sites at the bottom. Blatant self promotion. Timharwoodx 22:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The United States Government has made their position on remote viewing well-known. To paraphrase it: Delete. --Asriel86 01:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] War of the Stray Dog

Delete. Can find no reference. Can anyone prove it existed and isn't just made up? --SqueakBox 20:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as verified and in much better shape than when found (which fully justifies the Vfd), --SqueakBox 20:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

LibraryLion (talk · contribs) just removed the Vfd from here, --SqueakBox 21:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - League of Nations has a bit more on this border war (section 5.5). Googling returned a couple other references to this incident, [10] and [11]. Also found various timelines around the web that mentioned a Greco-Bulgarian conflict in 1925. Looks real. --Chris Johnson 00:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hm, well, son of a bitch (no pun intended), it does look real. Keep (and rewrite heavily, because this is damn close to copyvio).DS 04:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if verified. Sounds like a conflict of the same order as the Pig War or the Caroline Affair. --Carnildo 23:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Oh its verified alright, its very well known in Greece. Keep  ALKIVAR™ 19:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• weak keep. Seems genuine, if nn.
• How about keeping it, and by the way, recommend something for deletion if you know for a fact it isn't true, or, is really insignifigant, instead of putting up for deletion just because you hate the one who wrote the article. Yeah... I just make up articles like this when I get really bored. LibraryLion

  There are a few users who do just that: make up articles when they get bored. As for proving something isn't true, see proving a negative. --Carnildo 23:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  how about not making personal attacks?  ALKIVAR™ 23:53, 14 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) 03:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zit (comic)

As near as I can tell, this may be made up. Googling any of the characters' names returns zero results. Feco 20:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since this is in fact a real thing, I revoke my nomiation for VfD. Google has failed me and I've lost all faith in the world. One must admit, the article does look suspicously like a clever hoax. Let it run the VfD course and it will be kept. Feco 20:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a side note: Googling for 'zit comic' finds several references. --Vodex 21:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - It is a real comic. A search on eBay.co.uk brings up a few copies of it for sale. Several online video retailers list "Zit Magazine - The Video" (though it has long been deleted). --Daniel Lawrence 20:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I created this article and I read dozens of issues of Zit. If it didn't exist then I spent my teenaged years hallucinating. Seriously though, despite an alarming absence on Google searches, there are a few links, like an illustrator who lists "Zit" amongst his credits and someone selling an old copy of Zit. Robert Mercer 21:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting, haven't seen a case like this before. I'd say weak keep on the argument that a published comic (other than by vanity press, by self-publishing, or only on the internet) would be somewhat encyclopedic. If we have a lot of similar material we might need to form some guideline for this, akin to the 'music inclusion guideline'. Radiant_* 22:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable, sadly. It was like Viz without the tact. Dbiv 23:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Iccch. I wish I could vote delete, but this is real, so keep. If anyone tries to create an individual entry for Micky Munk and his Magic Spunk, I say we ban their IPs and have them killed. DS 01:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate publication. Wasn't this the title of an underground comix publication, too? 23skidoo 04:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate publication, and a member ofUK underground Viz knockoffs in good standing. --Vodex 16:42, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I, too, remember this, and may flesh it out later. CatCrofts 05:30, 14 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 01:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Googolion

A Google search on this number turns up nothing. I think it falls in the number family between skillion and jillion. Feco 20:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. Xezbeth 20:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, neologism. --InShaneee 20:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Googol. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a specific grammar thing, like "This is the googolionth time I've voted for deletion this week." Not notable, or even interesting really. --Asriel86 00:38, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Or even extant. Invention. Not a hoax, just garbage. Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content, replace with redirect to Zillion (which is a merger of all *illion articles I could find). Radiant_* 09:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn garbagecruft. ComCat 06:36, 14 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 20:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demaizeaux

Someone's personal geneology, with an aside about their family's greatness. Feco 20:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless there is some explanation forthcoming of his family genuinely being notable (e.g. a political dynasty). Average Earthman 20:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability turns up. FreplySpang (talk) 21:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Low

Non-notable, probable vanity. SteveW | Talk 21:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of particular fame or importance. Kappa 21:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable/vanity DDerby 22:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks almost uncannily like vanity. Dbiv 23:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, created purely as vanity page, user has history of vandalism. --Alexs letterbox 00:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 22:08, 13 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 20:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9-9-1

No useful information, this is the number for the Malaysian Defense Services DDerby 22:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

changed vote to keep but keeping it open for vote since Malaysia has a much smaller population, is not an English-speaking country, and thus has less inherent significance. DDerby 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not quite as relevant to myself as 911 --Asriel86 00:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone calls 9-9-1 and sics a Malaysian airstrike upon you, you'll probably find it relevant. Are you within a thousand kilometres of an MDS base? Barno 03:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not much scope for expansion Dsmdgold 02:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, on behalf of all the Malaysians to whom this is relevant myself to whom this is interesting. Has plenty of scope for expansion, as 9-1-1 demonstrates. Kappa 05:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why aren't the Malaysians speaking up for themselves? Megan1967 05:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • OK forget them :) Kappa 23:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Kappa. ugen64 05:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep not because of the subject but because of the near-incomprehensability of the current version. Agree this is a prime candidate for "organic growth."  :) - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no content, not encyclopedic. RickK 05:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a phone book. Martg76 12:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WIN. Radiant_* 09:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it must be quite important to Malaysians. Delete Grue 06:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not relevant CatCrofts 13:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Concur with Martg76. VladMV ٭ ^talk 22:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Alex.tan 16:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seems worthy merely of dictionary entry. CharlesPence 6:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Plumbing

Advertisement page taken (but not copied) from the company's website. --DDerby 22:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity, probably not notable. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant spamvertising. Delete Chris 23:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• For the same reasons, Delete Delirium 05:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: spamvertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Pavel Vozenilek 00:32, 13 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. —Xezbeth 13:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shabeg Singh

Listed as a speedy by the original page author, anon 134.220.3.2, who did not give reasons. However I don't think requested deletion applies here as the page, while remaining a stub, has had significant information added. Dbiv 22:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable Indian general who defended the Golden Temple at Amritsar. Dbiv 22:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. The content of this page is of a very low quality and provides contradictory views. The IP address of the original author is the public facing one of the University of Wolverhampton's wireless network, and therefore the author should not be confused with the modifier of the deletion clause.
• Delete, POV, borderline notability - only 260 Google hits mostly from Sikh sites. Megan1967 05:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not particularly surprising that an English Google search doesn't show many hits for someone who was a Sikh leader in India and who died more than 20 years ago. Seriously, if it's POV or low quality and contradictory, then the way to solve this is list it on pages needing attention or Peer Review. Dbiv 10:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and list on pages needing attention. Sholtar 10:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and List on pages needing attention as per Sholtar. Sikh General who died in operation which received wide coverage in 1984 Capitalistroadster 11:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly notable for his defense of Amritsar. - Mustafaa 07:15, 13 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. — Xezbeth 19:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mysterious aircraft designations

This is an article on a completely idiosyncratic non-topic, and I believe that it should be deleted for this reason. Information from this article is included in the articles about the airplanes it lists. --NoPetrol 22:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopaedic. It is relevant to the F-117 that most people thought it was called the F-19 because no-one had allocated that number, but collecting them together is pointless. Dbiv 23:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, merge relevant stuff in existing articles about the aircraft. Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with both NoPetrol and MacGyverMagic. Linuxbeak 17:07, Apr 20, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piss tube

Not sure quite what to call this... non-notable, non-encyclopedic, slang? Either way, I don't think it belongs. Feco 23:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete —Wahoofive | Talk 23:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• WTF? Delete Chris 23:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, please try and find a real reason for deletion. Kappa 23:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I dispute the veracity of any article whose only external reference is at Faux News. Chris 15:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps consider a merge/redirect to urinal if someone really thinks it warrants hanging on to, but it seems unencyclopedic trivia at best. Arkyan 00:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a desert storm glossary. --Asriel86 00:24, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also Wikipedia is not going to cover sanitation during wartime, it seems. Kappa 00:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. This is just too funny to delete, what with the reference it provides and all. --NoPetrol 01:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Please KEEP. It is a real object, and certainly it has as much notability as those Pokemon articles you guys are keeping. ugen64 03:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge to urinal, condensed into a single paragraph. This device is at least as notable as some of the ones listed in that article. BigFatDave 04:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that BFD. Kappa 05:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No problem, I held off on redirecting until the votes are in, but I believe all relevant info was transferred. Also, urinal continues to be updated, so I'd say the transplant was a success. BigFatDave 23:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Urinal and merge content. Firebug 05:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, unencyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ick. Ok, merge/redirect per Firebug, on general principle. Radiant_* 09:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since it is real (above). Pavel Vozenilek 00:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete Only in the USA... Denni☯ 22:34, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into urinal. -- The Anome 23:41, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One-hit wonders in the United States

I think if we have to delete Two-hit wonders in the United States and Zero-hit wonder, why don't we delete One-hit wonders in the United States as well? --KelisFan2K5 23:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This one's different, since there are concrete criteria for one-hit wonders, unlike those others (Two-hit wonder was already VFD'd [although recently recreated as a redirect to One-hit wonder], and so was 1½-hit wonder). In this case there are also breakout lists for UK and Canada. Keep —Wahoofive | Talk 23:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I thought a One-Hit Wonder was officially an act that scored only one top 20 entry (outside the 20 would not really be a "hit")? Chris 23:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's basically just any song that gets a band popular, but the band doesn't do anything notable afterwords. --Asriel86 00:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The criteria used for inclusion among one-hit wonders may be arbitrary and change from one person to the next, but the phrase is in widespread use and is an important cultural phenomenon. If anyone feels that items mentioned in the article are too POV they should be fixed, but the article should stay. Arkyan 00:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. OHWs are a notable piece of our fuzzy culture. --Asriel86 00:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and don't nominate articles for deletion unless you want them deleted. See WP:POINT. Meelar (talk) 01:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It is considered encyclopedic.

• Keep, Id say its rather important. Not that my vote matters too much. --Satanicbowlerhat 2:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — RJH 03:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike the other dubious terms, this one is actually in general use. But does the article have to be limited to the US? I'm concerned it might result in articles such as "One-hit wonders in Luxembourg". 23skidoo 04:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with 23skidoo, Keep but merge with all other [[One-hit wonders in <country>]], since any song that's a hit in the US is likely to also be a hit some place else. Radiant_* 09:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you actually compare One-hit wonders in the United States with One-hit wonders in the UK or One-hit wonders in Canada? They're quite different. —Wahoofive | Talk 23:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This listing was created out of pique because KelisFan2K5's personally created articles have been listed for deletion. RickK 21:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This looks like a good faith nomination based on this comment from another user: [12] Egghead 21:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know what comment Egghead is referring to, but I agree with RickK; this is clearly a bad faith nomination. KelisFan2K5 is one of the most frequent editors of this article, and knows that it won't be deleted; disrupting Wikipedia just to prove a point is really unnecessary. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - Carolaman
• Keep, wondercruft. ComCat 06:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- useful Foodmarket 15:36, 14 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. —Xezbeth 13:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lakes of the Meadow Library

The article doesn't provide any reason why this is any more notable than any other ordinary public library. Delete. — Ливай | ☺ 23:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, what if I wanna go on a Friday? --Asriel86 00:15, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently, Friday and Sunday are the days the unfriendly staff is there, and they won't welcome you. But you can still go if you want to. --Angr/_comhrá 16:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All public libraries as public institutions are notable by nature. Klonimus 08:11, 15 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 20:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jolie laide

This is pure dicdef, and has been transwikied (Wiktionary:Transwiki:Jolie laide). Having thought it through, I see no potential redirect, as it's only about the words, not any encyclopedic context. And, it's not a "real" thing :), Delete. --Dmcdevit 23:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:40, 13 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, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor buckingham

Vanity/personal attack. Unecyclopedic and Google search shows no mention of this person. Delete. --Dmcdevit 23:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all college students. --Asriel86 00:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Last sentence could be a personal attack. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a personal attack. Megan1967 06:06, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Neufeld

Non-notable, non-elected politician, vanity. Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous afd's at vote 1, vote 2, vote 3

Bad faith nomination. User:Spinboy nominated this article twice before one ending in "no consensus", the other in "keep". Nothing has changed since then and he presents no new arguments that would change the outcome. Furthermore, there is a policy discussion on this subject at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates on this topic of electoral candidates, past and present, where a new argument for deleting this article could emerge. The centralized discussion is not intended to be in this afd. --maclean25 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • A bad article is a bad article, regardless of precedent. Spinboy thinks it doesn't belong: do you have any reason to doubt his sincerity or are you just throwing mud? --Calton | Talk 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, it appears I got a little distracted by the legislative candidates part of it. However, I called it bad faith because it just appears that he has a vendetta against Grant Neufeld aka User:GrantNeufeld, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais (although it is difficult to determine his stance). His only edits to the page have been to tag it but has done nothing to address the issue in the talk page. All the attempts to delete...just looks like he is out for blood. Wouldn't have been an issue if any of the other (how-many)thousands of other users would have put it up for deletion. Let me know if you think I'm "just throwing mud". --maclean25 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh huh. And your reasons for believing he has a "vendetta" is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok, maybe the above comment was a little too confusing. So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb, here is an outline of my rationale in a more simpler step-by-step format, all of which was taken directly from the links provided in the previous statement:

1. User:Spinboy attempts three times to delete Grant Neufeld [13], [14], [15]
2. unsuccessful, User:Spinboy tags the article as {{Unencyclopedic}}, {{OriginalResearch}}, {{POV check}} but does not participate in the talk page is discussion on the tags (only User:GrantNeufeld does)
3. User:Spinboy leaves Wikipedia on Oct 27.
4. User:Spinboy comes back stating "Oh, I'm not staying. I'm still extremely pissed off. I just saw something that cried out for an afd nomination, and I couldn't do that without logging on. I seriously dislike the hypocracy around here, one of many reasons I left." (refering to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais)
5. Several days after his return he posts this afd with the same rationale as the last vote "Non-notable, unencyclopedic, vainity. Delete. --Spinboy 23:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

He returned to put up an afd on User:Montrealais (and none of the other dozen-odd other Canadian legislative candidates). While back he couldn't resist kicking this article one more time. Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? --maclean25 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb I've noticed that bad writers often try to shift the blame for the confusion, ambiguity, and mystery they cause by insulting their readers. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? Sure -- if you start off assuming malice.

Quitting in disgust and coming back is proof of what? Well, that he got over it. If this is suspicious behaviour, I'll work up a (long) list for you of shady characters for you to watch, including User:Ta bu shi da yu

I like the reasoning, though: he's nominating this for deletion for a third fourth time because he has a vendetta. The proof he has a vendetta? The fact that he's nominating it for a third time. Why is he nominating it for a third fourth time? Because he has a vendetta. Rinse, lather, repeat.

And the fact that he nominated this and not others proves what, exactly? It's a slight variation of the bogus rationale offered by hundreds of voters in past AfDs: namely, the whine "if the Pokemon/one-horse town/trivial-in-my-opinion-subject article stays, so should mine": the appropriateness of this nomination has bugger all to do with other lack of nominations. If this (in your view) double standard upsets you, give me a list of other candidate articles, those running on the No-Hope Party ticket in the Riding of BFN that, gosh darn it, Spinboy should have nominated for deletion and I'll do the job myself: I've got some time to kill right and I can get right on it. Though be quick, I'm leaving in half-an-hour.

Maybe Spinboy has nominated this article for deletion because he thinks Neufeld doesn't rate an encyclopedia article? Yes, standards in an encyclopedia -- that's just crazy talk! As far as I'm concerned, if Mr. Neufeld wants free publicity for himself, he ought to check out MySpace or Geocities.

In case you genuinely don't understand what I wrote, let me know and I'll use smaller words. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to drag this on, I think we both made our points, but I just want to clarify something. I just realized where you got the circular "Rinse, lather, repeat" argument from. The five points above are not five individual arguments, that is, point 1 is not by itself a complete argument. They are a chronological list of events that ended in this afd, that is to say, one argument leading to the conclusion. --maclean25 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I seriously resent that. I'm allowed just like everyone else to make afd nominations. If you're going to be a jerk, be it somepalce else. I left because of jerks like you, and I will be leaving again. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Just a point of clarification - this article wasn't posted as an "electoral candidate" article (although I have been one). The reasons given for 'notability' were my roles as president of the Green Party of Alberta, and founder of the Revolutionary Knitting Circle (laugh if you want, but we've got chapters on two continents and have had mainstream media coverage on three - I'm most proud of my interviews in Interweave Knits and Vogue Knitting :-). --GrantNeufeld 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Started by subject, edited by subject, not notable as he has not been elected. This is vanity and lacks the ability to have a NPOV with Mr. Neufeld's involvement in it. FullSmash26 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He shouldn't be editing his own article. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. I think that folks with direct knowledge of a subject should be contributing to the articles here. I'd see a serious problem if they were the only ones working on the articles, but the presence of "many eyes" on Wikipedia balances off any POV issues that such contributors may create. I've contributed to a lot of articles on Wikipedia where I'm not "at arms length" (such as the Green Party of Alberta), and provided detailed references when questions have been raised (such as on the article being debated here). In any case, the previous two votes on this article have not found my auto-biographical contributions to be sufficient cause for deletion. As to the imposibility of auto-biographical NPOV, I encourage you to review the comments from Earl Andrew, Kevintoronto and gord on the article's talk page as counterpoints to that view. --GrantNeufeld 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. Whether you disagree with it is utterly immaterial, since this isn't your website, and your blatant self-interest/vanity/self-promotion/whichever doesn't trump long-standing policy. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware that a formal policy against any auto-biographical contributions had been established. I know there's a general discouragement against it - but I have not heard of a prohibition being adopted. --GrantNeufeld 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment That is because there is no such policy. In fact during the recent debacle regarding Mr. Seigenthaler many people were critical of him because he did not simply change the innaccuracy himself and instead made a big deal out of it. It seems people desire to have it both ways on the autobiographical issue. Vanity is bad but people are far more capable of reasoned self appraisal then some seem to think. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Autobiography: to baldly state that ... there is no such policy without acknowledging these clear guidelines is playing a bit fast and loose with your rhetoric.
            • To baldly state that there is no such policy is absolutely correct precisely because that document is NOT policy and is a guideline. In addition the document itself does not even forbid the practice but defines why it is ill advised. And yet Jimbo is clearly shown to edit his own article with regularity. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• From the intro: Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself. Refraining from autobiographical editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV pushing. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just like last time, I say delete. Still non-notable, still gross vanity, and still should go -- at best -- to user space or MySpace.

So what is it with the Canadian election? Suddenly it seems every no-hoper-party candidate for every one-horse riding in Canada thinks they deserve an article on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds too much like vanity to me. As per anon user above, this is more appropriate material for a user page. Comment Regarding the repeated nominations, in the absence of a policy or guideline I think Spinboy is within his rights to nominate this again, although it does seem to be abuse of a loophole. Zunaid 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Grant is the president of an active provincial party and an Alberta Centennial Medal recipient. Reviewing the articles for other political parties in Alberta shows that most of the leaders (elected or not) have articles as well. Grant should probably refrain from editing his own article however, to prevent the accusations of vanity. -Dr Haggis - Talk 07:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely. And note to GrantNeufeld, usually when coming up for a vote, instead of attacking your opponents, you might want to try to prove why people should vote for you. Just for the future. Flyboy Will 07:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that you perceive my responses to other comments here and points of information to be "attacking". I'm not interested in flaming anyone (even though there are some significant disagreements here - disagreement does not have to mean disrespect). Please review my comments above again—I believe on close examination they can be seen to be talking specifically to the issues, and are not 'attacks' on any of the participants in this discussion. --GrantNeufeld 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, President of Alberta Greens, candidate in Alberta general election, 2004) and founder (in 2000) of the first Revolutionary Knitting Circle (now an international activist movement). are claims which make this individual notable in my view. People are allowed to edit articles about themselves as long as they remain neutral and while starting your own article is frowned upon, there's nothing forbidding you to do so. Anyway, neither of these are reason to delete an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That this has survived earlier discussion is astonishing: execrable self-promoting vanity page of an insignificant that heavily exaggerates asserted notbaility. The organisation which the subject has founded, Revolutionary Knitting Circle should also be brought to AfD as inherently unnotable as well. Perhaps other Canadians here can chime in on having heard of it or not, but so far my running tally is 0. I find maclean's suggestion that this is a bad faith nomination hard to fathom. A badly self-authored page that is nothing more than a funnel for an out-of-control ego should not be on WP; bringing it up for nomination is a perfectly good thing to do. Eusebeus 12:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Mildly notable as the president of the Green Party in Canada. -- MisterHand 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [16]. The provincial party got 24,588 votes in 2004, 2.75% overall but no seats, making them #5 in the league tables. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarification: Jim Harris is leader of the Green Party of Canada, Bruce Abel is president. --GrantNeufeld 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also clarification: Wikipedia has a clear precedent that leading figures in a political party within a defined political entity, even if that political entity is the provincial or state level, merit articles regardless of the party's electoral success, on "because they're party leaders" grounds. Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, barely notable, but he is a Green Party President.Gateman1997 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The president of the Green Party in Canada is indeed notable and so is the Revolutionary Knitting Circle — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [17]. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Jim Harris isn't the president of the party either. Perhaps you misunderstand Canadian political party structures. "President" is a position within the political party's internal structure, who's responsible for running the organization. It's rarely, if ever, the same person as the party's candidate for Prime Minister (who gets termed "leader", but is not actually the top authority in the party structure.) Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If this article has survived two votes already why the heck must we have a third!? Wiki should have a policy of no renomination for deletion IMHO. Jcuk 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the article is poor and contains a lot of trivialities, the guy is the pres of the Green Party. --NormanEinstein 21:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of Alberta, not Canada. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- JJay 04:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nominations. Grant Neufeld's edits since APril 2005 have been to add a picture and categories. Nothin POV or vanity going on here. Ground Zero | t 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' I don't see it as POV (although it is a bit heavy on the vanity front). I also think that the repeated nominations for deletion will eventually cause it to be deleted, if only because the ones seeking to have it deleted will keep coming back, but the people voting keep will eventually move on assuming that once the vote was settled, it was settled. I don't see how an article can be nominated for deletion after passing an AfD vote and the article not changing significantly. (unsigned vote by GordonBonnar, 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
  • I have revised the article to remove the vanity aspect and make it more encyclopedic. In previous communications that I have had with Grant Neufeld, he has indicated that he understands and accepts that other editors will revise the article. This is no longer a "vanity article". As far as future attempts to delete this, if this attempt fails, it will be clear that future attempts will be bad faith nominations. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Mildly notable politician. The last AFD was a keep, and the precident stands. The only time a keep should be overturned, is if it was based on information that turned out to be false and/or unverifiable; or else if there was some kind of failure in process. The nominator shouldn't just keep redoing AFD's till they get what they want. Far to many articles and AFDs go without attention, because AFDs are clogged with these unfounded nominations. Note: if this article hadn't survived a prior AFD, it would have been entirely justified to nominate as this is a "week keep" level person. --Rob 16:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: this is WP:POINT. Stifle 02:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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