Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 10

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joünié

Delete.This description of a lebanese city, Jounieh, is more of a tourist brochure than a real article (see for yourself). So I started a stub article Jounieh that would have a more encyclopedic content (in addition to a more suitable name) 500LL 16:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Unless you have evidence that this is a copyright violation, this looks more like a candidate for redirect than deletion. Be bold. Rossami (talk) 18:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • After making a Google search, I found out that it is taken from this site. But this is not the only problem: It's content is not encyclopedy-like (read it for yourself), it's like taken from a touristic brochure.
      • Now marked as a copyvio. That is a deletable offense (but should be reported on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here). The fact that the original version was poorly written, however, is not usually considered a good argument for deletion. More often that not, that's cause for {{cleanup}}. Thanks for finding the source. Rossami (talk) 04:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, tourist promo, copyright violation. Megan1967 08:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Transwikied to Wiktionary. (already done.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gormless

Content is only Wiktionary material, concerned with word usage and etymology, specially motivates by the appearance of the term in the online comic strip User Friendly; as such, it approaches being a vanity page for readers of the strip (you may see comments in that respect at their site). A notice that the article was unencyclopedic was removed by another user, as was a previous move-to-Wiktionary notice. A Wiktionary entry already exists. --Taragui 11:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While very detailed, this is still only a discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of a word. The expanded content should be added to the Wiktionary entry. Rossami (talk) 18:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean move to Wikitionary Dan100 21:36, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikitionary As one of the main editors of User Friendly's article, I agree with some of the comments which have been made, and as such feel that it would be better in the Wikitionary. Epideme 09:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge alternative spellings and citations with already existing Wiktionary:gormless article, that was created six months prior to this one. Discard all remaining content as useless chaff. Then {{wi}}. Uncle G 17:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to the Wiktionary entry. Megan1967 08:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and provide a link to Wiktionary entry Kickstart70 19:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Yep, definitely more apropriate in Wikidictionary Aix tom 20:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as noted above unjust
  • Moved to Wiktionary --Taragui 09:21, 19 Feb 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. Rje 17:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemon Aqua

This seems to be a random Pokémon hack, possibly several, none of them all that notable. Here's a Google search for "Pokémon Aqua". Most of the references seem to be to the Pokémon card game, so I did a Google search for "Pokémon Aqua" game. Here's a couple bits of evidence I found for Aqua being a hack-

Thread about Aqua as a hack.

Mention of Aqua as a Blue hack. It's near the bottom of the page, in the comment from Donut.

So, in other words... delete this. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 00:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as cruft. Wyss 02:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. --Idont Havaname 04:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 06:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't they have their own websites to fill with every last bit of tedious minutae on their favourite game? Average Earthman 10:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Pokemon. Some of this stuff would be too crufty even for an Encyclopedia of Pokemon. --BM 02:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gotta delete 'em all. (Just kiddin, inclusionists) Carrp | Talk 04:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Serves no useful purpose, even as a Pokemon article. -- Cabhan 05:09, 15 Feb 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. Rje 18:03, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baruun-Urt

Had its two weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, no one's done anything with it. Topic is OK for an article (it's a place in Mongolia), but if there is anything useful here it needs to be translated. I think it's in Russian, despite the following anonymous remark on this and the (now copyvio'd) Erdenebulgan, Arhangay:

  • Both by the same unregistered IP. One has a link to a Mongolian website, so that may be the language. I flagged one with the new {{cleanup-translation}} instead of the notenglish one. (I'm not sure what the difference is supposed to be.) 68.81.231.127 06:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, feel free to salvage but delete if left in present form. Oh, and the difference between {{cleanup-translation}} instead of and {{notenglish}} is that the former is for things that are "mostly translated" and not candidates for deletion on that basis, but need further work. This should have been tagged {{notenglish}}. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is the article that triggered the discussion leading to the current use of the template. I did change it to the notenglish template after that was resolved, so it has been flagged correctly for the requisite two weeks. 68.81.231.127 07:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, two weeks are two weeks. Wyss 02:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not Russian or any Slavic language. It's probably Mongolian, which is also written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Time's up, chances of translation are low. -- Curps 02:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Christopher Welsh 00:08, 16 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Heinlein Trio

This article will never mature beyond a stub, because there isn't any content beyond stub content. It's a reprint of three books. That's all that can be said. Snowspinner 01:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's Heinlein and may be helpful to someone. Wyss 02:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What content can you figure out to expand? If the article is only ever going to be a list of the three books it contains, there's no content to be helpful. We are not a card catalogue. What content can ever possibly be added to this article? Snowspinner 04:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously useful.--Centauri 03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree quite strongly with Wyss on this one. —RaD Man (talk) 04:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:03, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. It sets a bad precedent to have an article for a collection of previously published stories. If i wanted more info on a story in one of my Heinlein collections, i'd look up the title of the story. foobaz·✐ 05:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Random compilation albums, books etc are annoying. Merge into List of Heinlein books or Heinlein. Kappa 06:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. Megan1967 06:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, an important compilation by one of the most influential aurhors of early science fiction. This compilation is important because of the socio-political message of all three groups. The historical context ("Pan-Asian" xenophobia) - which, although culturally acceptible aat the time, in a modern context shows what now would be considered obvious, blatant racism of the author that is not reflected, but influenced in his later work, including the cultural mileston, Stranger in a Strange Land. -- DAVODD 06:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • All the individual titles already have articles. What's "important" about this particular compilation? Calton 12:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: If there was anything in the article to indicate it was more than a random compilation, I might change my vote. Kappa 07:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the "Editions" and "Publication History" sections in the articles on the individual books. All the relevant information can still be preserved, and is more useful, in those sections. Nateji77 12:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an omnibus edition of three books that already have their own articles. What more could possibly be said about it that doens't go into the individual articles, or the one on Heinlein himself? Calton 12:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't so much matter what can be said about it, but rather that someone searching for "A Heinlein Trio" on wikipedia will find out exactly what it is on that page, which means that it will have fulfilled its purpose as an encyclopedia. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:26, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, that would mean that WP has fulfilled a library index's purpose, which is not WP's. Barno 20:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into articles on the individual books. If there was evidence that this could be expanded beyond a stub, I would change my vote to "Keep". Carrp | Talk 13:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If anybody thinks it is a notable fact about Heinlein that his publisher decided to print three of his novels together, then it should be mentioned in the Heinlein article, or perhaps in the articles about the novels. (We have an article on each of the three novels already.) If a particular edition of a novel or compilation of novels was so notable to book collectors or for some other reason then we could conceivably have articles about them. For example, perhaps the term "Heinlein Trio" occurs frequently in discussions of his work. But the independent notability would have to be established. It has not been in this case. --BM 15:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, probably to Heinlein. Each of the novels already has a separate article. The marketing decision to republish three of them as an anthology is not encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 18:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge relevance (as provided above by DAVODD ) to the three stories' articles and to Heinlein. Since one term can't redirect multiple places, also Redirect to Heinlein. I noticed as a kid that several RAH stories from a certain period had that Pan-Asian xenophobia that didn't feel like his later work. This is "notable" to Heinlein fans, some general SF fans, and people studying racism in literature, but doesn't stand on its own as an encyclopedic item. Agree with comments that compilations aren't generally separately notable enough for inclusion. Barno 20:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, in no way warrants deletion under the Deletion policy. Dan100 21:39, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Bibliography section of Robert A. Heinlein and redirect. Gamaliel 05:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (what little extra there is - basically the publisher and the individual titles) with Robert A. Heinlein and remove circular link from the latter. Uncle G 17:47, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Don't see any avenues for expansion. Noisy | Talk 01:15, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge => Robert A. Heinlein Courtland 05:47, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
  • Merge to Robert A. Heinlein - this volume didn't add anything to the Heinlen canon, in itself. CDC (talk) 03:01, 15 Feb 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. Rje 18:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taco rubio

To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this article. It seems to be either a vanity piece about a person with this handle, or an ad for an "upskirt museum". A search for "Taco rubio" OR "taco rubio" gets about 213 hits [1]. --Deathphoenix 01:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, reads like fictional nonsense, article provides no context otherwise. Wyss 02:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a handle on secondlife.com or something like that. There is no reference for that site, so a user can't be that important. The Jacobin 02:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone's user name in an online game. -Goldom 03:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's an entry for Rubio's Baja Grill that this can be redirected to. That's a Southern California chain specializing in fish tacos. Good eats. - Lucky 6.9 03:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete people's MMORPG chat avatars are not notable by definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah, the wonderful world of privacy invasion in fictitious worlds. I'm a little surprised at a lack of wiki for anything relating to the whole Mr. Bungle MUD incident [2] which was one of the first major controversies in the domain- might have to get onto that myself. This one's also pretty interesting and could become as big a deal, but doesn't appear to have had quite the same splash in terms of Google hits, but it's still quite recent, so I'm torn. For now, no vote from me. --Lawlore 18:59, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dude, Mr. Bungle definately needs an article (I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have one). I'm not voting on this one for now, either. --L33tminion | (talk) 01:30, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:06, 15 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Hartwell-James

This page is a dup of article Walter James. The title incorrectly conjoins James' middle name and surname. Article Walter James is a high quality article, and it pretty much covers everything in the dup. Hesperian 01:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, someone may have been trying some sort of vanity tie-in or whatever... dupe. Wyss 02:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The contributor is a well-behaved wikicitizen. I think this is an innocent mistake. Hesperian 02:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The contributor is an anon IP with less than 50 edits to his name. I think maybe you thought I contributed the article. I didn't; I only added cleanup and category tags to it after it was created. My apologies anyway, though -- I'd actually have speedied it instead of tagging if I'd known it was a duplicate. Bearcat 03:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I was speaking of the anon IP. The contributer seems to be focussed on making Hale School a great article, and making sure every famous person who ever went to Hale School is recognised as such. Despite the single-minded focus, previous edits have been valid contributions. Hesperian 23:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, with the reservation that if information is present in the deleted article but not the "original", that it be preserved. Avriette Thu Feb 10 02:43:30 GMT 2005
  • Merge and redirect to Walter James. Megan1967 06:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This is not a case for VfD. Be bold! Mikkalai 07:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thankyou Mikkalai - I have been bold. Walter Hartwell-James has been merged into Walter James. Walter Hartwell-James is now a redirect (which doesn't work because it still has subst:vfd in it). You may wish to consider the matter closed, and remove this VFD. Or you might wish to continue this VFD, in which case you will be voting for/against the deletion of a redirect. Hesperian 00:20, 11 Feb 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. Rje 18:10, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Story Of MY Life

Hoax. No Google results, no TVTome, no IMDB for "Story Of MY Life" or "Paul Grobman". See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Paul Grobman. Rhobite 02:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, someone's either trying to sell a pilot, or larking about. Wyss 02:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real show in Lithuania.
    • Comment It would have been nice to have this vote signed. I wonder if this is the same show they are refering to. There is no reference to Lithuania in the article. The Jacobin 02:56, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • The keep vote was by the author of the article. Rhobite 03:12, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete is the story of my life too it seems, lately. —RaD Man (talk) 04:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. --bainer 04:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A Lituanian TV series starring the voices of Paul Grobman, Hal Stevenson, Adam Letcher, Alice Joyce... An animated series with a schoolkid protagonist named Bart? I'm going to have think long and ha Delete. Samaritan 04:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And I'm sure the Hannukah episode plays real well in Lithuania. Rhobite 04:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, If no Google results, no TVTome, no IMDB, then no Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 08:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Story of MY Life: How my article was deleted on VFD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:06, 15 Feb 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. Rje 18:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Grobman

Hoax/vanity. No Google results, no TVTome, no IMDB for "Story Of MY Life" or "Paul Grobman". See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Story Of MY Life. Rhobite 02:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, see prior entry. Wyss 02:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. --bainer 04:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete. Samaritan 04:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, If no Google results, no TVTome, no IMDB, then no Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 08:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Carrp | Talk 04:07, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TAMER M RASHDAN

Vanity. Delete.-gadfium 02:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure he's a swell chap, but nothing remotely close to meriting an entry in Wikipedia. Delete. older≠wiser 02:10, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the CV. Wyss 02:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 03:15, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nice guy...but he didn't read Da Roolz. - Lucky 6.9 03:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Idont Havaname 04:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this guy is not-notable. The first thing that comes to my mind when reading it is "So what?" Zzyzx11 08:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not important, needs to turn the caps lock off. Average Earthman 10:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much a textbook example of a vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:08, 15 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dunlop

This pagename is a brand of a musical audio effect product. The device is a brand of Wah-wah pedal which is redirected to the musical effect Wah-wah. It probably could be Merged into Wah-wah if someone thinks that it is a notable brand, otherwise Delete. Another factor is that the Dunlop brand is more highly recognized for automobile tires. hydnjo talk 02:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and/or Delete. hydnjo talk 03:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keep. See below
  • 25500 web hits for +Dunlop +"wah-wah". Merge and keep as disambiguation (also to John Boyd Dunlop of the tire empire and John Thomas Dunlop who was briefly in Gerald Ford's cabinet). Samaritan 04:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur Kappa 07:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 06:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup into disambig page. In addition to Dunlop tires, there's Dunlop golf balls, and lots more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup into disambiguation. There's also prominent Australian war hero Edward "Weary" Dunlop and the suburb Dunlop, Australian Capital Territory which is named after him. Capitalistroadster 18:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if someone starts a Dunlop disambib page then I think this article should be moved to Dunlop pedal - hydnjo talk 01:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • See also: Dunlop Manufacturing, Inc. and Jim Dunlop for articles about this product. It seems to be pretty fragmented (spread around under several pagenames) right now and with links from musicians (eg:Jimmy Hendrix) to articles other than this Dunlop article. Is there any reason not to move this to Dunlop pedal right now, withdraw the VFD, and then try to tie the other articles together in some way? hydnjo talk 01:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. ☺ Rewritten article. Keep. Uncle G 20:01, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote after the work done by Uncle G. Thanks Uncle. I still think that Dunlop Manufacturing, Inc. needs to be linked to Wah-wah and Wah-wah pedal because of its prominence as a brandname for those effects and devices. hydnjo talk 23:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Added some links with thanks to Uncle G for the framework. hydnjo talk 01:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good work! =) --Andylkl 07:39, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's nice to see a rehabilitated page. Carrp | Talk 04:09, 15 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enneacontakaienneagon and Hecatontakaitriacontakaioctagon and Heptacontakaiheptagon and Tetracontakaihexagon and Triacontakaiheptagon and Icosikaitetragon and Heptacontagon

Not notable, and not used (if mathematicians ever needed to refer to these, they'd call them a 77-gon, 99-gon and a 138-gon, etc. etc.)). -- Curps 02:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also Template:Polygons if there are any more that are not notable.

Once again, these terms are not used even by mathematicians. They just refer to N-gons, where N is whatever the number is. Probably it would make sense to delete anything where N > 10 (with some exceptions, see comments below). -- Curps 02:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, silly. Wyss 02:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stupid. --Woohookitty 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism dicdefs. Gazpacho 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • IANAM' but there was one hit on Google groups for Enneacontakaienneagon The Jacobin 03:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the individual articles, but there must be an article on compound words where they can be, at least, listed for trivia's sake. There's a similar article (I forget the exact title) dealing with names for very large numbers that are never used in any practical sense. 23skidoo 03:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; agree with Curps except I'd preserve the dodecagon and make the rule N > 12. (Is that nitpicking?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, that makes sense. -- Curps 04:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • But also keep N=17 (notable), and perhaps N=20, N=100, N=1000 (see comment below). -- Curps 07:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, silly. Follow Jpgordon's suggestion of making the rule N > 12. --Idont Havaname 04:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • OK N>12, but keep circle. Kappa 04:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a few N>12 that we'd want to keep. In particular, heptadecagon (17-gon), because Gauss showed that this can be constructed with a ruler-and-compass, and asked for one of these to be inscribed on his tombstone. "Heptadecagon" gets a reasonable number of google hits because of this. Icosagon (20-gon) also gets a reasonable number of Google hits, perhaps because it's a relatively simple word, as does hectagon (100-gon), and oddly chiliagon (1000-gon) gets a very large number. Really, it's the bizarre random-number ones (138-gon???) that are the main problem. -- Curps 06:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article whence these names came from is Polygon — it seems someone's just created the articles for a lark. All the strange-numbered polygons should be deleted and de-linked, since there's nothing encyclopaedic to say about them. Raven42 07:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Curps. Mark1 08:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. There's nothing here that's not already covered under Polygon, which also includes a little formula on how to construct these names. I wouldn't want an article about every single polygon up to the googolgon (1e100 sides). I linked two of these to my own user page for a lark, but I have no problems with deleting all of these articles. --Deathphoenix 14:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the corresponding number pages, and update links on the polygon page to match. (e.g. merge on 24 (number) for Icosikaitetragon.) Note that there are multiple hits on Icosikaitetragon in google. — RJH 18:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There are 109 hits for "Icosikaitetragon" in Google, which isn't a lot, and a number of them seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia's Polygon article. -- Curps 19:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge these not-notable ones all to an article on such words as 23skidoo suggested, also Merge them to the corresponding number pages as RJHall suggested. But Keep the commonly used ones where N = 12, 17, 20, 100, 1000, and 1e100, and make sure the retained articles provide evidence of notability such as Gauss's construction, or approximations of a circle when trying to "square the circle". I used to play D&D but that doesn't mean I think its polyhedral dice are encyclopedic, let alone polygons. Barno 20:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge all the polygon articles into one article listing all of the polygons that have very long names. - Latitude0116 12:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • IHNPAMOT. Nothing useful to merge. Redirects are pointless. Remove the hyperlinks to these articles from polygon; remove the other dangling hyperlinks from polygon, to reduce temptation; and Delete. Uncle G 17:53, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Merge. ✏ OvenFresh² 00:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, silly constructable terms Jok2000 01:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all except the ones mentioned by User:Curps, do not merge or redirect the deleted ones. This is a prank. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete N>17, but not 20, 100, 1000 Jonathan48 09:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary this is a definition article... -- EmperorBMA|話す 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete extrapolationcruft. I'm wondering if we can formulate a policy on articles of this kind; that is, there is articles whose only content is to define a name which can be formed by a regular process from any number. Wiktionary does not need "definitions" of terms that are never actually used. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No fewer than 4 days have gone by since the most recent vote, and no fewer than 9 days since voting began. Yet, this deletion debate has not gotten a consensus yet. What happened?? Georgia guy 16:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Can we create a Redirect, whcih will redirect us to a merged article, for example, Polygons: 90-99? Androo123 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 20:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joyful Child Foundation

Seems like a vanity article. Non-notable organization. My vote is delete. Spinboy 03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Samantha Runnion was just up for deletion a few days ago. This article was created as a result of a suggestion in that VfD debate. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Samantha Runnion. --Idont Havaname 04:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Organization appears to be notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia (IMHO). —RaD Man (talk) 04:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. They were on GMA. - RedWordSmith 04:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 04:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, less than 240 Google hits - sorry just isnt notable enough. Megan1967 06:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wrote this article after Katefan0 and Idont Havaname suggested that we merge the Samantha Runnion article into an article on the Joyful Child Foundation. I created this article as a consequence - I have no connection with it. My personal preference was to keep the article as it was a widely reported case and the trial is still ongoing with the potential for it to be a capital case going on for years. As the Foundation has 50 childwatch programs established in Southern California with plans to do more, I thought it was notable enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 13:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 15:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete a page on a non-profit with a fairly significant outreach and that has links to a crime that had some news coverage. Katefan0 18:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 20:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 04:11, 15 Feb 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. (Just kidding. KEEP) dbenbenn | talk 20:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isolecithal and centrolecithal

Redirect both. A couple of very Wiki-worthy terms which it has apparently never heard of. Could someone please define them but is it in Egg (biology) or Ovum. (I didn't know mammals laid eggs but MSN Encarta mentions mammals as well. VfD is probably not the right place for this but it is a popular place so this request may get noticed.) -- RHaworth 03:18, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

  • Comment yes one mammal does produce eggs, the platypus, no vote as yet. Megan1967 06:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Isolechithal. Looks like a spelling mistake of Isolecithal. Centrolecithal does exist - 13,600 Google hits. It's the food yolk placed at the centre of an ovum. Megan1967 06:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • My spelling mistake has now been corrected - thank you. -- RHaworth 08:13, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be willing to expand both articles by tomorrow night. Just stubs at the moment. Megan1967 09:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you want to redirect, then just do it. VFD is long enough as it is, please don't fill it up with things that aren't deletions. sjorford:// 10:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Both articles have potential, keep. Leanne 22:03, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humanist League Manifesto

The article's creator, 24.236.152.155, has been on a spree to hype his "Under Construction" website and some guy (probably himself, but that's speculation). Advertising/non-notable. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-10 04:06 Z

  • Delete. 1 Google hit for title of article, non-notable, POV, advertising. Quite an obvious delete with this one. --Idont Havaname 04:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, vanity. --bainer 04:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Googling around I see that there are some 'humanist leagues' in Europe but I don't get the sense that this site has anything to do with them. It's just an under construction page with one link asking for a donation. --Lee Hunter 04:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A social/political ad/attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host. Delete. Samaritan 04:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, almost a cool band name, though. Wyss 20:49, 10 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spambellish

DicDef for a neologism. No hits on Google. --Lee Hunter 04:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism. Although, possibly merge with spam? --bainer 04:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Wyss 20:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. dpol 02:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:11, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This article can not be deleted due to block-compression errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electron/temp

Time to go? Looks like done. Mikkalai

  • Delete. Looks like merge has been completed already. Do not leave redirect. jni 10:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:41, 13 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anabolic (band)

Failed VFD once due to not enough votes. See: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anabolic (band)/Old -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 05:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article provides overwhelming evidence of vanity. Wyss 20:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because the article does not meet the guidelines of WikiProject:Music. Tuf-Kat 09:50, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. Out of curiosity, why was the previous vote tallied up to 2-1? Does the nomination of an article to VfD not count as a vote for deletion? — Ливай | ☺ 11:37, 15 Feb 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.

The votes were 13 delete, 9 keep.

[edit] Diane Mela and Robin Gabrielli

Both failed VFD due not enough of votes to form a consensus, both non-notable actors from the same movie. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Diane Mela and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robin Gabrielli

  • Delete both. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Mikkalai 07:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Megan1967 09:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both. —RaD Man (talk) 09:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both, any actor/actress/director/filmographer/writer/etc... listed on IMDB (with more than a 1 line entry) is sufficiently notable for inclusion on wikipedia.  ALKIVAR™ 09:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • These were up for deletion from January 30 to February 4 or 5. This seems too soon to go through this again. Samaritan 11:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Yeesh. --Calton 12:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And Megan1967? Putting up a headshot doesn't make it the slightest bit more notable. --Calton 01:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Appearing in a few straight to video movies doesn't make you an "actor" any more than my work for wikipedia makes me an "author". Neither of us are making a living as such. Not notable. And an entry in IMDb is not an automatic bye into wikipedia any more then a list in "Who's Who in American High Schools" is. IMDb does not discourage self-promotion (I think they even encourage it) and will list just about anyone. They are not an encyclopedia and have no notability requirements. -R. fiend 19:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
IMDB does a better job of filtering people than you think. I've had credited roles as both a speaking actor and extra in several movies. Several of the movies i've been in are on IMDB. (Shadow Glories, Mystic River, Empire Falls) just to name a couple. Yet you wont find me on there.  ALKIVAR™ 20:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you've had speaking roles in released films and you're not on the IMDb then you haven't been trying. Nothing wrong with that, not everyone necessarily wants to be listed, but I don't think that means we have to reward those who do, and accept that it makes them notable. Acting does not equal notability. -R. fiend 22:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i've had a whopping 15 lines of dialogue across 11 movies, by imdb standards thats not includeable.  ALKIVAR™ 05:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Better than many, believe me. You needn't even be credited, or have any dialogue at all to be listed. Check out this person. Would you believe she has a wikipedia article? -R. fiend 06:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That one doesnt pass my noteability standard... as I said earlier, 1 line or less on imdb isnt inclusion worthy. VfD that one and you have my support. These two on the other hand just squeek by.  ALKIVAR™ 06:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I tried, and it missed "consensus" by one vote. The VfD ended a couple days ago, and if I try again now I'm sure I'll be shouted down by people who cry foul and vote keep based on accusations of "abuse". I'll wait a few weeks anyway, but if someone else wants to nominate I will again support. -R. fiend 06:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. democrazy legge gets less than two dozen hits--numbers I'd expect from someone selling self-produced DVDs out of their garage. Niteowlneils 20:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
interesting
  • Results 1 - 49 of about 132 for Democrazy Legge. (0.34 seconds)
  • Results 1 - 100 of about 11,800 for Democrazy movie. (0.12 seconds)
not to mention the fact that we have an article on Michael Legge (deletionists: btw thats not up for vfd yet, get to work).  ALKIVAR™ 20:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for me, this is about where one finds "the line". Wyss 20:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep professional actors are notable if verifiable (i.e. on IMDB) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please supply evidence that this person is professional. She ain't making much money off these no-budget movies. -R. fiend 02:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I would say that appearing in 8 feature films (albiet indie ones), plus television work, makes her a professional actress by just about any reasonable measure. There are loads of actors out there who would love to work that regularly. Think of how many actors don't even make it to their first or second feature film role, much less their eighth! If you're asking me to prove that she's not also a waitress or something on the side, I can't, but even if she did have another job it wouldn't necessarily make her not a professional actress. The body of work alone proves it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think "feature film" gives too much credibility to these movies. First of all, they aren't films at all; they were shot on video. Second, all Diane Mela's movies are by the same guy, Legge. Looking at IMDb, none of the movies report making any gross. The only reported budget (for Honey Glaze) is $2000, which, after subtracting technical costs there is maybe a few hundred dollars left over to pay all actors and crew. And that's a later, and therefore likely higher budget movie. I see no television appearances listed. So what we have here is a friend of a very minor B-movie director who appears, either for free or for pennies, in these movies he makes, which never seem to make it to theatres. Here's what an online reviewer and self-proclaimed Legge "expert" said: "We’re talking zero-budget DIY film-making here - shot for very cheap on location on video camera using friends, neighbours and family as actors." There may be actors who might want to work that regularly (if you can call 7 roles in 16 years "regular") but probably not for free. Sorry, but I just can't see how she can be professional. -R. fiend 18:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Both Why should we not include actors who aren't terribly fameous? If it's self-promotion, that's not acceptable, but an encyclopedia like this should include a world of information. Are we running of paper?Zantastik 06:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • For the same reason we don't include non-famous plumbers or accountants. -R. fiend 06:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • ...but, we must remember that actors are part of culture, accountants and plumbers are not. Also, since nearly everyone enjoys some sort of movies, so acting can hardly be considered a niche subject. That's why IMDB is one of the most popular websites in history, and plumber databses are nowhere near as popular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was originally an attempt by someone to advertise their no-budget films. One of them , Democrazy, has been deleted before and keeps getting recreated. None of these people have done anything significant, it's not even right to consider them actors. And for the last time, IMDb is NOT an indicator of notability. You can add whoever the hell you want onto it yourself. Xezbeth 06:46, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep them both and allow for organic growth. Wikipedia is not a paper-based encyclopedia. GRider\talk 19:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP BOTH - This is getting pretty stupid now. To keep putting the same people up for deletion over and over again. Plank 19:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Robin Gabrielli should have been deleted with the prvious vote, but wasn't due to a miscount. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robin Gabrielli: 4 votes for deletion, (myself, Average Earthman, Xezbeth, Edeans) and 2 for keep (plank, Zantastik) = consensus to delete. Any admin feel like being bold and correcting this? -R. fiend 19:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT I think we have the answer why this R. demon is all hepped up about wanting to delete these actors. It's because with his own words on this page he says that IMDB will list anyone on the IMDB if they've worked on any film and yet he doesn't even rank "anyone" with his bit of extra work on The Time Machine. He's a want-to-be actor himself! He's just jealous of these people! You don't "do" extra work unless you want to be an actor!!! Also, note that his friends who have made films aren't on IMDB either!!! So they must be really low on the totem pole too!!! :) lol Plank 00:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Interesting theory, albeit completely retarded. Could I be on IMDb for being an extra in a single movie? I don't know; I haven't tried, because that would be pathetic. And my friends who have made films actually are on IMDb, and I find it odd you would say they're not considering you know absolutely nothing about them. Am I jealous of Diane and Robin? Well, somehow being in a handful of universally panned B-movies without making a dime off it doesn't sound like a dream come true. I suppose they might have been fun to make though. No, if I'm jealous of anyone I doubt it's Michael Legge's friends and neighbors. -R. fiend 00:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Plank, keep your observations about the motives of other votes out of the vfd discussion and please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Gamaliel 16:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I will not keep my observations quiet. My name is being bandied about by fiend and even on other VFD's! It is being implied that I am advertising or that I am part of a plot! Half the articles I began to work on have been deleted! There must be a motive to these people attacking all my contributions! I have a right to make these comments and I'd like to see you shut me up. You have a real nerve Gamaliel singling me out to chastise. Is it policy for users to personally attack people that articles are written about. I've noticed fiend making fun of casting aspertions at and insulting almost every person of whose article he has voted to delete. Some of the things he has said could be considered slander! You are in fact personally attacking me Gamaliel by posting your comments here you could easily have left me a message. Peoples motives are important this demon fellow is abusing VFD and is following all my edits and contributions around. He has even accused me and others of vadalizing Wikipedia because we contributed to articles that he did not like. What do you call that? I call that grossly stepping over the bounds of civility. Where were you then. I don't care if you are an administrator don't you dare single me out to yell at and neglect any others who have been campaigning against all my articles and have been making comments about me "personally." Plank 03:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I cannot monitor every article on Wikipedia, so I have no idea what kind of interactions you've had in the past. However, the only person I see here attacking others, making fun of the user name of another editor, and inventing sinister motives for other users is you. If you feel that you have been attacked by others in other articles, please privately report it to an administrator or follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead of complaining and attacking others in an unrelated article. Gamaliel 16:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Personally, I'd like to see any evidence backing up anything Plank has just accused me of. There should be a record of it somewhere if it's true. Sure, I've made an occasional quip about some of the people who have articles, and their weak claims to notability (and I am by no means alone in doing so), but I hardly see how that qualifies as "abuse" or "slander". I suspect Plank thinks I'm "following him around" because I nominated to delete a bunch of "actor" substubs he created (these two included), but all that involved was a simple peek at the page for that "Democrazy" movie he is so cracy about; they were all right there. And he might want to note that I did not nominate "Democrazy" for deletion, nor did I even vote to delete it when someone else did, so this is hardly a vendetta. Someone needs to take his pills (oh, is that slander?). -R. fiend 06:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, well it looks like we've now seen the level of inclusivity on Wikipedia. So the 'Average Professor' test can die as well, right now. Anybody - and I mean every, single one on the entire planet - who is an employed professor by a legitimate university deserves an article if actors of this level do. I still vote Delete Average Earthman 01:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both articles. Being a movie actor isn't the royal road to notability. The bar seems pretty low for actors on Wikipedia, but it it isn't this low. --BM 22:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Diane Mela. I've deleted Robin Gabrielli] after reviewing the tally; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robin Gabrielli]. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No need to erase these articles when cartoon characters have their own, keep them both. Leanne 22:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of true notability. Gamaliel 16:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Kevin Rector 22:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. —Korath (Talk) 01:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. dbenbenn | talk 20:33, 21 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Luo

Article on just some ordinary Harvard undergrad, Delete, would be nice of it could be a speedy.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This guy is not-notable. All I can say is "So what?" and "Who cares?" Zzyzx11 08:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a winner, but not encyclopedic. Katefan0 18:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 20:38, 10 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This page cannot be deleted because of block-compress errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belokk (Mortal Kombat character)

This is a videogame character that never even made it into said videogame - which itself does not have an article as I write this. Hence this is all minor, non-notable videogame trivia. CDC (talk) 05:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, minor fictious character, fancruft. Megan1967 06:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Put a minor note in the relevant game article when it's written, but if he didn't make it into the game, we don't need an article about him. Mgm|(talk) 08:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-canonical or hopelessly minor character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this cruft. Wyss 20:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Microcruft if not an outright hoax. My son used to delight in beating me senseless at this game and, as such, I became familiar with the lineup. I have never heard of such a character. That goes for the secret ones, too. - Lucky 6.9 21:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If he doesn't actually exist, it seems ridiculous to include him in an encyclopedia. -- Cabhan 05:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fatality... Carrp | Talk 13:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL!! Flawless victory! - Lucky 6.9 18:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC

It should stay as they have fictional stuff like ET in Wikipedia!

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beertools

Looks like advertising for a website. CDC (talk) 05:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All advertising. Nothing notable. Zzyzx11 08:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- blah! Free advertising. Katefan0 18:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this five-day free ad which'll inevitably make its way onto a couple of infrequently maintained WP mirrors and waft around the Internet for decades. Wyss 20:36, 10 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hashim fakher hashim

A prank played on poor Hashim fakher hashim who, having a degree from "the prestigious University College London", would clearly never do something as silly as making a vanity page on Wikipedia about himself. (Unverifiable article on non-notable graduate student.) / up+land 05:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, whatever. Wyss 20:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, despite 0 google hits, our mysteriously unlisted friend also finds himself concurrently listed among famous UCL alumni stochata 00:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 13:19, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad movie warning signs

Original research. Neutralitytalk 06:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - inherently incapable of being NPOV. DAVODD 06:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only objective thing in it is the bit about skipping critic screening, but really that just applies to reliably predict that critics will pan the movie, not that the movie itself is in any objective way "bad". If there's some article somewhere on film criticism, that could be mentioned there. The rest is irredeemibly POV. Postdlf 07:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, original research, inherently POV , etc. etc. etc. Szyslak 08:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Echo all the above comments. I can think of great films that break all of these rules. But I must admit I do have an odd taste in films. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 08:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, mildly amusing fluff, mostly original research and anecdote. Wyss 20:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Especially since the category it's in is linked from Wikipedia:Unusual articles. There is a feature article currently in the Christian Science Monitor about Unusual articles. Zanimum 00:19, 2005 Feb 11 (according to history Uncle G 18:30, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC))
  • I'd like to know where Wikipedia:Original research article warning signs is. Delete. Uncle G 18:30, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many reasons, all discussed above. Carrp | Talk 04:12, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Reid

also Stuart reid Vanity/not-notable.--ZayZayEM 06:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Rhobite 06:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 06:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Hoary 08:51, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed with ZayZayEM. Mgm|(talk) 08:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 09:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not establish notability. - Jpo 14:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Careful, this guy attempted to change the votes. Grue 17:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. Wyss 20:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:13, 15 Feb 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. I think I'll merge it.

The votes were 4 delete, 3 merge, 2 keep. dbenbenn | talk 21:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Bellegarrigue

Copilot of a plane that crashed, taking her with it. A sad story, but I think not a notable one. -- Hoary 08:47, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

  • Delete, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 09:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe we can merge it into the article about the golfer her airplane was carrying (Payne Stewart)? Mgm|(talk) 13:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Don't see any harm in including her name in the Payne Stewart article -- the other pilot too for that matter. Katefan0 18:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge it into the golfer aarticle, she wasn't encyclopedic as a co-pilot. Wyss 20:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up. How quickly people forget. What was notable about the incident was that the aircraft flew with both pilots dead for over 1,400 miles; Bellegarrigue was one of those pilots. Dan100 20:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is that she isn't notable for anything other than the crash. So I fail to see how she merits her own entry, whether she flew while dead or not (can the FAA ticket for that?). Katefan0 21:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, can't it be merged with Payne Stewart? Please...[user:twinjalanugraha]
  • Delete. Sad? Yes. Notable? No. Merge? Perhaps. Carrp | Talk 04:14, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Six by nine. Forty-two.

I had redirected this to The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything and placed it on redirects for deletion, but I guess that's cheating when the article contains so much material. Delete this unuseful spelling. Gazpacho 08:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, duplicates content. Wyss 20:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page was created only to fill an empty link. I am aware of the fact that it duplicates info. However, if one intends to link to something, one should make sure there is something to link to. I was merely cleaning up after someone else.

                              -ManetherinBlade

--The leopard watches in satisfaction. 04:00, 13 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Le Joshua

Mistake. Very notable and influential Los Angeles punk band.

  • The above edit is by anon user 68.68.216.55, the creator of this article, NOT RickK. Szyslak 01:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable teen band. RickK 08:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity.Nateji77 12:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band's website has .tk domain. Band isn't signed to record label. Does not reach notability standards of the Wikiproject Music. Mgm|(talk) 13:28, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not close yet. Wyss 20:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as bandcruft, even though they're from my old neck of the woods. - Lucky 6.9 02:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Typical bandity. Szyslak 01:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 03:36, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:14, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voes

A term being used for unpleasant, yet not extreme feelings. If someone's behaviour makes you uncomfortable, and so that person makes you think: "i really don't need this, " then that person is VOES. Etc. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Hoary 09:01, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

  • It also isn't a repository of nonsense. Delete. RickK 09:03, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, apparently a made-up word, article provides no explanation of who uses it and doesn't know what an adverb is. Kappa 09:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef, probable neologism as well, no useful content or history. Andrewa 10:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand how this page tributed to the already wealthy Wikipedia community, besides i know what Voes is, it's dutch (Belgian) slang and has flew over to the States over the years. Steefje 12.30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) ...comment actually added at 11:44, 2005 Feb 10 by User:84.194.89.38
  • Transwiki to Dutch or Belgian Wiktionary if they want it. Dic def. Mgm|(talk) 13:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm still going with delete as inadequately informative. Note that definitions written in English go in the English wiktionary. Kappa 18:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Agree. I've sent the contributor, a self-confessed newcomer, a welcome, and I think one of our fellows owes them an apology for what he hastily wrote above. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, way obscure slang dicdef. Wyss 20:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, not in real use. Compare Tuulk above... I'd accept verifiable evidence that the word actually is being used in the U.S. but none has yet been presented. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and no, that's not Dutch or Belgian either. 212.206.63.108 10:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Carrp | Talk 04:15, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Gillis

Vanity. RickK 09:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Righty-o. Delete it. —RaD Man (talk) 09:46, 10 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael C Molesky

Is he really notable ? Can this ever become an encyclopedic article ? JoJan 09:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • ULTRA EXTREME KEEP. Notable and verifiable (from what I can tell). By all means, someone please correct me if I am wrong (and cite references).
  • EXTREME DELETE. Not notable nor is it verifiable (from what I can tell). By all means, someone please correct me if I am wrong (and cite references). —RaD Man (talk) 09:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. Google finds some hits, all of them seem to be unrelated. jni 10:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is notable only for the number of times it uses the word notable without ever justifying the claim. Andrewa 10:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. - Jpo 13:58, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article provides no evidence for its encyclopedic claims. Wyss 19:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established by the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Michael C Molesky is very famous in the Oxford area due to his involvement in the most contraversial elections in Oxford's history. He has developed a cult following, with parties and events held in his honour.
  • Delete. Based on current article, Google search and links cited on article page. If being quoted in the Cherwell is notable, every one of the 10,000 students in Oxford is. JuntungWu 04:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, people are notable. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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



[edit] Round One

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 20:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B.J. Eversole

Is he notable ? Looks like vanity. JoJan 09:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have no problem having it removed; I (like almost everyone in my party save perhaps David McReynolds) am not notable. It wasn't for vanity as much as it was a small joke associated with a lack of sleep. I wanted to have a Wikipedia article for my party, and just for kicks made a stub article with my name; I figured that it would be marked for deletion anyway. I am the real Chairman of the Socialist Party of North Carolina, a real (albeit small) political party. Thanks to the person who found my letter and expanded the article; it almost makes me look important. I have seen Wikipedia articles for truly famous or important people that are shorter than mine. After looking at it I am impressed; it will almost be a shame to see it go (hell, I'll throw in a photo if it is not deleted); but I can certainly see reason to remove it. If it is deleted, do not put any of it in Socialist Party of North Carolina; none of it is important enough to be included in the article.

One other thing: Please, Please do not delete the party's article or merge it into the Socialist Party USA; I believe that we are distinct enough from our national party to deserve our own article. --Bjeversole 06:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, do not merge. —RaD Man (talk) 09:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's turning into not a bad article, and there is room for it here. It's not like we're running out of space. If we can have all of those blessed articles on fantasy gaining characters, we should have room for political activists who engage in the fantasy of socialism. Kevintoronto 14:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • My own belief is that being a leader of a registered political party operating at the state or national level, even a minor one, should suffice to merit an entry whether they're elected to a legislative body or not. I wouldn't support having an article for every individual who's ever run as a party candidate in an election, but party leaders pass my keep line. Bearcat 18:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Bearcat. CJCurrie 18:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, leaders of registered state political parties are noteworthy. Shimeru 20:30, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, this is the sort of detail that makes wikipedia valuable in that it can be included here where in other encyclopedia space considerations would lead to exclusion. AndyL 02:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Worth keeping as it is a good little article. What does B.J. stand for, I wonder?Capitalistroadster 08:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my original request for Vfd. The article has been expanded in a positive way. If the author would only add his photo, then I can say Keep JoJan 09:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. 68 hits on google. [3] GRider\talk 23:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has been expanded. Carrp | Talk 04:17, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knots in Polish mythology

Found this orphaned, old VfD nomination when cleaning up related entries in /Old. It seems this was never linked from the main VfD page, so here it is again. No vote. jni 09:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - there is no such thing as Polish mythology and this seems like some new age rubbish. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:06, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know little about Slvic mythology - or Polish, for that matter (even through I am Polish and love fantasy). As far I can tell, Halibutt is right. For an even more idiotic entry, see Threshold in Polish mythology. Now that is 100% rubbish, as far as I can tell. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As far as I know, (willow-)knots are more or less important in folklore in general, but not specifically in Polish mythology. Lectonar 12:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, codswallop. Wyss 19:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:19, 11 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radical Christians

  • DELETE - Strongly biased article. Article has got bad title too. And by the way, I live in Moravia, this so called movement doesn't exist at all. It contains few members, I think 5 or 10 radical students. That's all.

--Darwinek 10:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. But please follow protocol when submitting pages for VfD. Phils 12:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a joke. JoaoRicardo 12:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, misinformation, vandalism, bad-faith prank. Wyss 19:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, possible prank or hoax. Megan1967
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Szyslak 04:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be Christians with free electrons, right? Delete Radiant! 22:18, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Several reasons, discussed above. Carrp | Talk 04:18, 15 Feb 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) 20:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duchess of Cornwall

Certainly a valid topic, but shouldn't we wait until this is settled? Wikipedia is not a news source. Many things can happen to prevent her from actually becoming the Duchess of Cornwall. Until then, we can add to Camilla Parker Bowles. JoaoRicardo 12:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I do not believe the reason provided by the VfD proposal submitter is valid. Maybe redirect to Camilla Parker Bowles, but anything else would be erasing valid information. Phils 12:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, don't redirect, and expand to discuss history of the title. Samaritan 12:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Let me remind you that we already have a Duke of Cornwall article. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the same title? Is there such a great diference on the gender of the title holder to justify two diferent articles? JoaoRicardo 13:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I second Samaritan's views above. Berek 13:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article has no value at all. There's no point in having an article on various Duchesses of Cornwall, they were already Princesses of Wales! The history of the title should be on a page called "Duke of Cornwall", not this one! The info in this article should be, and is, in the article on Prince Charles, so deleting this article will not eliminate info. And on 8 April, this can redirect to what should then be the newly moved article "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall", jguk 13:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • A quick google for "Duchess of Cornwall" reveals a long history of apparently independent use as well. Heck, Regan, Duchess of Cornwall is King Lear's daughter in the Shakespeare play! Samaritan 13:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Samaritan's comment. James F. (talk) 14:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not an independent title; and its history is already in Duke of Cornwall. The factoid in the article is already in Camilla Parker Bowles, where it belongs. When they marry, we can all argue about the appropriate title for the article about her. At present, her name is Camilla Parker Bowles. --BM 15:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Historically valid article, although it needs to be expanded to discuss the history of the title. (And I don't consider Duke of Cornwall and Duchess of Cornwall to be the same thing, any moreso than Prince of Wales and Princess of Wales, and both title has its historical figures). I think this article should also explain why Camilla is receiving this title instead of Princess of Wales. 23skidoo 15:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I'd be fascinated to learn what, exactly, the reasoning is to strip her of her rightful title as wife of the Prince of Wales. :-) James F. (talk) 16:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Because allowing her to become Queen would, righly or wrongly, damage the monarchy as it would be unacceptable to many people in Britain. It is simply pragmatism, a modern version of morganatic marriage. Philip 16:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 16:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Should be expanded to help people fully understand the complications the relationship between Charles and Camilla brings to the monarchy and the reaons behind the decisions they and the monarchy make!
I've expanded it a little. It turns out that there is already an article about morganatic marriage, of which this is a variant. PS, you need to sign your votes or they don't count. Philip 16:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Neo 17:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I said above, this is not an independent title. The Duke of Cornwall is always the eldest son of the British monarch; it is not a hereditary title. Duchess of Cornwall is a courtesy title only ever given to the wife of the Duke of Cornwall. The eldest daughter of the sovereign and heir to the throne is not the Duchess of Cornwall. There is already discussion of the complications related to Camilla Bowles title if she marries Prince Charles -- in both the articles on her and on the prince. There is no need for an article on a courtesy title. --BM 18:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important topic especially as the Prince of Wales is now officially engaged to Camilla Parker-Bowles. The Shakespeare reference is an important reference as well. Capitalistroadster 18:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Duke of Cornwall seeing as when she actually receives the title by wikipedia naming standards her article will be moved to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall making this article redundant once more. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this has got to be kept as a disambig at least. Kappa 18:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Duffman 19:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap, and the courtesy title flows directly from the Duke of Cornwall. After Charles and Camilla marry, then we can have an article on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall—assuming that's how the titles are worked out. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and merge any useful content from the current Duchess article, of course. Perhaps add a section to the Duke's article, and add a column to the table of Dukes to list their corresponding Duchesses...? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since posting, it's been wonderfully expanded, so far by Pcpcpc, Neo and Jdforrester. Samaritan 19:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's helpful, even if it is boring. Wyss 19:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Redirect to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall after the wedding.--Centauri 21:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term is soon going to become much talked about. As mentioned above, all the article needs is some expansion on the history of the title. -- Old Right 21:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please don't think I am picking on some people's votes, bu I still don't understand what is the reasoning here. The history of the title is already covered in Duke of Cornwall. Category:Dukedoms shows that the format Wikipedia has adopted is to have articles about Dukedoms in the masculine form, covering both the Dukes and the Duchesses. Are there other articles like this one? Why should this standard be broken now? And many things can happen until the date of the wedding, she is not Duchess now. I am sorry, but I am completely lost on this one, and I would like to understand better the arguments of people who are voting "keep". JoaoRicardo 21:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC).
Wikipedia is for the general public, not academics who are already away of all the semantic finesses. Relevant information should be made available in the most convenient possible way providing that the article does not break any policies. The background to the new use of this title is more accessible in a specific article than in an article which also covers many other issues. Philip 15:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I don't understand what you mean when you said "semantic finesses". Do you mean to say that Wikipedia users might not be aware that "Duchess" is the feminine of "Duke"? I find it hard to believe, but if that is so, how about a redirect to Duke of Cornwall? The story of the title is already there. Princess redirects to Prince, Empress redirects to Emperor, Duchess redirects to Duke, Countess redirects to Count etc. Category:Dukedoms shows that this has been the standard, and I believe this is more pratical than having a fork for every feminine form of the title. This would be like having an article for actor and another for actress. JoaoRicardo 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Or indeed one for First Lady as well as President, or even Second Lady as well as Vice-President? --Neo 23:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"First lady" is not the feminine form of "president". These are diferent concepts. However "duke" and "duchess" are not diferent concepts; they are diferent words for one same concept. JoaoRicardo 00:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Duchess of Cornwall is the wife of the Duke, not the femenine form, the First Lady is the wife of the president, not the femenine form... don't seem so different to me... --Neo 10:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Your comment is even more apropos given the special characteristics of the title Duke of Cornwall. There is never a Duchess of Cornwall in her own right. Duchess of Cornwall is a style, a courtesy title, not an actual title. Indeed, until the Camilla Bowles situation developed it has generally been a secondary courtesy title, since the wife of the heir to the throne is entitled to use the style Princess of Wales, which is a higher title. We have several articles already explaining British peerage and titles, courtesy titles, styles, etc. We also have a couple of articles which include the same material as in this article covering the Camilla Parker Bowles situation. --BM 22:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • BM, I guess I missed something in this discussion. People just come here and vote based on an argument which I contested on the first few minutes of the VfD vote: that the history of the title is already covered in Duke of Cornwall. It seems people are giving their opinion without even bothering to read what others have to say on this topic. Am I being ignored for violating some Wikipedia policy or guideline? I am truly amazed at this vote! JoaoRicardo 08:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • If you ask me, this is getting ridiculous. Take a look at the newly created articles on the Countess of Wessex and Duchess of York, done by an annonymous user. Aoi 10:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep She will be the Duchess in April - like it or not and so of historical importance Brookie\talk
  • Delete. As many people have noted, the Duchess of Cornwall is a courtesy title, nothing more. If anything, this should redirect to the article on Camilla Parker Bowles (as "Duchess of York" redirects to Sarah, Duchess of York) or Duke of Cornwall. Either that, or follow what Centauri suggested above. --Aoi 01:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NOTE:- DUCHESS OF YORK NO LONGER DIRECTS TO SARAH, DUCHESS OF YORK, IT HAS BEEN EXPANDED BY ME TO A FULL ARTICLE.

    • I just wanted to make clear what I meant. Camilla isn't a duchess in *her own* right, she will be using the title because her future husband is the Duke of Cornwall. Aoi 04:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, historical. Duchess of Cornwall is a title that will no doubt be gaining more news momentum in the forthcoming weeks. Megan1967 02:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 02:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Change When I'm bored I tend to read a lot of the articles on nobility and so forth, this article is inconsistent with Wikipedia's general practices. As the actual Dukedom of Cornwall can not be held by a woman in her own right (or any man who is not the heir to the British throne for that matter) it would seem very inconsistent to keep this as a seperate article from the Duke of Cornwall article. I would support keeping it as an article on "Regan, Duchess of Cornwall" or as a disambiguation page with links to "Camilla Parker-Bowles", Duke of Cornwall" and "Regan, Duchess of Cornwall" but as a stand alone article about Mrs. Parker-Bowles it doesn't make much sense. (Just realized somebody else said this! Oops!) Gabe 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 09:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

STRONG keepThere is a seperate article for 'Princess of Wales' which is no more than a courtesy title of the wife of the Prince of Wales (which by the way, Camilla will be, whether she is styled so or not). If you delete this article I STRONGLY SUGGEST you delete the article on the courtesy title 'Princess of Wales' as there is already a 'Prince of Wales' article.--jcuk

    • Good idea. --BM 13:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. Charles is the Duke of Cornwall and Charles is going to marry Camilla a couple of weeks after Easter, so Camilla is destined to become the Duchess of Cornwall - and one day give it the same autonomy that Scotland and Wales have. Scott Gall 10:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Before you vote on the basis of Cornwall autonomy you might actually bother to read the articles. The lands of the Duchy of Cornwall are in Devon. Apart from the name, the Duchy doesn't have anything to do with Cornwall. --BM 13:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Duchy owns land in many counties, including Cornwall. Philip 15:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To be precise, the bulk of the property is in Devon. The small acreage the Duchy holds in Cornwall does not make it relevant to Cornish autonomy. The title was first used in the 14th century in just the way it is used now: for the English monarch's eldest sone and heir. --BM 15:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I wonder if this is the same Camilla who was Gonzo's muppet girlfriend. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a news source, it is instead a valuable electronic knowledge base of varying sorts of information. GRider\talk 19:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The above comment explains a lot. GRider, of course you're entitled to your point of view that Wikipedia is an "electronic knowledge base" of miscellaneous information; but many people think it is, or should be, an encyclopedia. Indeed Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says specifically that Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. --BM 13:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • K. JuntungWu 04:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article presents useful information not given at other articles. --Angr 10:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is important enough to be here, and unique enough to have its own article. -- James Teterenko (talk) 17:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it has been formally announced. If Camilla is run over by a bus prior to the wedding we can deal with it then. AndyL 01:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Keep". It should, however, be expanded. The style of "Duchess of Cornwall" has had usage in the 20th century. After the accession of Edward VII to the throne on the death of Queen Victoria, his son, Prince George, the Duke of York, was not immediately created Prince of Wales. There is some thought that Queen Alexandra was a driving force behind it because she did not want someone else known as the Princess of Wales given her long connection with the title. Prince George and Princess May were, therefore, known as TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York until he was created Prince of Wales late in 1901. User:GaryR 12:07, 14 Feb 2005 (EST)

  • Keep, given that, from April, a senior member of the royal family will hold this as their main title in use, it is appropiate for it to be an article. Astrotrain 21:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It will be a royal title soon. --Arbiteroftruth 22:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It just occured to me that naming an article 'Duke of wherever' is invalid anyhow, unless that title has been held by just one person. If all the 'Duke of...' articles were renamed 'Duchy of....' you could have a history of the Duchy (which most of the 'Duke of' articles seem to be anyhow) plus internal links to individual Dukes AND Duchesses of wherever.

jcuk

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was withdrawn. This VFD was withdrawn due to the fact that 2100 was vandalized. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2100

Do we need this now? I would say no...Lectonar 12:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • It used to be a redirect to 21st century - I've reverted it to that state. sjorford:// 12:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks; didn't see that; vfd withdrawn Lectonar 12:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are many individual years articles in Wikipedia going right up to individual years several centuries hence. You'd need to put a VfD on a lot of pages. If someone has an astronomical prediction to make for the year 2100, or if a piece of fiction takes place in that year, it makes it a valid article. See, for example 2525. 23skidoo 15:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There aren't actually very many beyond 2100 - see User:Sjorford/Future years for a list. Most are redirects to non-year pages, and 2525 is one of the few exceptions. If there is any information for 2100 (and note that the recent update didn't add anything beyond "2100 is the last year of the 21st century"), then it can go on 21st century until there's enough to warrant a whole page. sjorford:// 20:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment': Did you ever live near the Church Universal and Triumphant? They made predictions of the end of the world occurring in each of several years of the 1990s. If you review enough science fiction, there are stories taking place in virtually every future year for several thousand years. Keeping an article on every year reference (rather than only the most intrinsically noteworthy) wouldn't be an efficient use of WP. Barno 20:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Rubbish - delete -Brookie\talk

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hjalmar Vilhjalmsson

According to the article this businessperson's claim to notability is that he is the manager of a large fish plant and has made some unspecified investments in Estonia. I get 50 hits on Google for a scientist of the same name. --Lee Hunter 12:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Does not establish notability. - Jpo 13:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Non notable. Inter 16:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete at the moment, as the article does not establish particulary sufficient notability. Being the son of someone who won an Olympic medal isn't notable, and his brother appears to have competed in the Olympics but not won. Hjalmar's sporting achievements may not be as impressive as they appear, as I would suspect it may well be less challenging to play for an Icelandic team in the Handball European Cup than for, say, a German one. Average Earthman 16:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 19:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I wish people would stop saying 'non-notable' as if it meant something. If you mean 'it falls foul of What Wikipedia Is Not', say so, preferably with reference to which section in particular. Dan100 20:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I feel that "not notable" = "has no potential to be encyclopedic," which is clearly outlined. Oh, and delete. Katefan0 21:52, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Try Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. Average Earthman 01:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable - fails Google test, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:32, 11 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 22:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xaero

This article was link from a badly linked list, also, it is a rather useless subject. I vote it be deleted, since it has been orphaned as well. --Jimius 14:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above was begun by Jimius. I finished the procedure for him, and added a note on his Talk: page. My vote is Merge with something. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-10 12:35 Z
  • Delete. He is already mentioned on Quake III Arena. Article adds no further info. Phils 15:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect in that case. Kappa 17:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, cruft. Wyss 19:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Quake III Arena. Megan1967 02:33, 11 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The 12th floor

I cannot find evidence for this. Zero Google hits for "the 12th floor" + "stephanie rossi"; same results with "twelfth". JoaoRicardo 12:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've also been unable to find evidence of the book or the author. A Google search for "Stephanie Rossi" + "floor" [4] doesn't turn up any mention of either. Carrp | Talk 13:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No relevant hits for the author on Amazon.com either. Mgm|(talk) 13:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Non notable. Inter 16:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've actually read it. The author posted it rather offtopically in rec.arts.int-fiction, so you can check it out through Google Groups. Beware though, the author's writing style is not better than that of the article. Grue 17:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic, and carelessly written. Wyss 19:39, 10 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flyman

No info beyond dictionary definition of word. Nateji77 13:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — There are plenty of hits on Flyman in Google. 1913 Dictionary definition is of a driver of a fly, or light public carriage; another is for a theater stage hand, &c. But the current page is too brief and has little information value. — 18:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, misleading dicdef. Wyss 19:37, 10 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 15 Hours On A September Thursday

Track listing for an album. Nateji77 13:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • 'Twas a legitimate redlink from Matthew Good, the famously temperamental Canadian rockstar. Keep, cleanup and expand slightly.
    • okay. put something explaining what is on the page and i've no problem withdrawing the vfd. Nateji77 15:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I see it's been given context. {{cleanup-context}} would be an alternative to VfD in this kind of case. Kappa 17:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable demo album - less than 60 Google hits. Megan1967 02:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Demo albums are just as interesting, they show an artist's development. Kappa 06:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article's hardly had chance to develop - Drw25 15:36, 20 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Alijewicz

Vanity. Speedy if possible. Nateji77 13:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, it's not patent nonsense, but obviously not a valid article either. Mgm|(talk) 13:49, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 13:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's just barely not patent nonsense, I'd submit it is pure vandalism ("silly vandalism" and "attention-seeking vandalism"), which is CSD 3. The only potentially valid information is that he was born September 20, 1985 and is married. "There is little need to discuss the greatness of his eminent superior genius Michael James Alijewicz, as he is, quite simply, the greatest man who ever lived," etc. Samaritan 14:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll speedy it. It looks like CSD criterium #3 applies. Mgm|(talk) 19:30, Feb 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 redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] X.10

Merge and redirect. Same as the article X10. abelson 09:29, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect and delete indeed --Anthony Liekens 00:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seems like this page was never listed on VfD. In any any case, I'm going to list it so it can finish. My vote is Merge and redirect. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-10 13:19 Z
  • Merge and redirect Wyss 19:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into X10 and add redirect. Megan1967 02:37, 11 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This page cannot be deleted because of block-compress errors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autopackage

I believe that this entry meets the following prerequisites for VfD:

  • Non-notability (Very few people will have heard of autopackage, it's only had the occasional announcmenet on Freshmeat, very little beyond that. Even fewer use autopackage; it's not a widespread GNU/X/Linux packaging system.)
  • Potential vanity page (it's quite informative, but it's one of the few major pages that mentions Autopackage.)

The purpose of this entry would be better served by a merge with an entry about GNU/Linux packaging systems. --Rolloffle 23:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seems like this page was never listed on the VfD page. I'm listing it so it can finish the process. I'm abstaining from voting at this time. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-10 13:25 Z
  • Delete. Advertising for a software product at an early stage of its development. Its web site uses the undefined terms 'distro' and 'super-spiffy'. -- RHaworth 17:47, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
  • I tend to shy away from voting on software package type things as I know little about utilities beyond Microsoft stuff that I use every day. But if what Rolloffle says is true, I'd vote delete. We should not have an entry for anything of low to moderate interest that hasn't even been released yet, beyond the other problems. Katefan0 18:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, software ad. Wyss 19:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, product not yet notable. 'Distro' is a commonly-used term for a software package distribution; for example, Ubuntu Linux is a different distro than Mandrake Linux, with different utilities and packaging around the same software kernal. But super-spiffy (from the website) is, um, not encyclopedically verifiable. At least until they release a product. Barno 20:46, 10 Feb 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 DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 02:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W-Kiss

"Traditional Japanese Flash game".

I know Japan is technological, but I don't think Flash is exactly "traditional". (That is the flash it is talking about, no?). And I damn dissapointed there wasn't at least an external link... --ZayZayEM 13:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • '"W-kiss" "flash"' gives me 2 results on Clusty and 370 on Google of which the first then seem unrelated. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 13:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. I get 690 google hits for '"Wild Kiss" Flash', and 373 for '"W-kiss" Flash'. The first twenty or so are unrelated. There is nothing "traditional" about "Flash", unless you're talking about indecent exposure. --Deathphoenix 14:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete; managed to find a non-hentai reference [[5]]; but the article isn't really much help. Nateji77 14:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • It may refer to a flash version of KISS (KIsekae Set System), which is based on the traditional Japanese game of kisikae played with cardboard dolls, very popular in otaku and anime circles. Possibly written by a non-English speaker, which would explain the confusing syntax. Problem is, there doesn't appear to be anything encclopedic associated with the term W-Kiss, so Delete it. Wyss 19:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, article writing as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Silly. Delete. Radiant! 14:59, Feb 16, 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Most-edited_talk_pages

This page hasn't been updated through the whole of 2004. If no-one's using it, why do we need it? -- PaulHammond 13:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd like to see an up to date version of it. --Joy [shallot] 18:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto, keep -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with User:Joy. Keep and update. Mgm|(talk) 19:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've asked for an update two or three times, but either I wasn't asking in the right place or no one saw it or something. Keep and update. Tuf-Kat 23:03, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and update though I don't really see much use for it, I suppose it's handy from a statistical point of view. 23skidoo 23:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and update, because it's certainly got me curious. --Calton 07:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if its not being used for a period of time that's no reason to delete it. Not at all. —RaD Man (talk) 09:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Update periodically to maintain interest. Last request for update was 1 Sep '04 by Tuf-Kat on this Scripting request page. hydnjo talk 18:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not very useful if it's rarely updated though. Carrp | Talk 04:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. How was it created in the first place? Maintaining updates would be easier if more people knew how it was done. Wagiles 22:22, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and update if there is a simple automated way of updating it at least monthly. Otherwise delete. -- SGBailey 23:13, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Config-mode

There does not appear to be anything notable about config-mode. Perhaps a general article could be written on configuration modes for electronic equipment, but that would be very general and not likely encyclopaedic. Jcsutton 12:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet another orphaned/lost VfD nomination. Resubmitted by me. jni 14:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cisco Systems IOS cruft. jni 14:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as cruft, WP not a tech manual. Wyss 19:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete the one usefull sentence needs to go to IOS instead of to Config-mode, the rest is in Cisco publications about IOS. (look at the See also on IOS for more details.) Similarly; Global Configuration Mode should have exactly the same handling, Merge it's usefull content and Delete the page.-- Dbroadwell 20:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP != tech manual. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to IOS, and add redirect. Megan1967 08:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:21, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Menchini

Vanity. Nateji77 14:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Abuse is more the word I'd use. Average Earthman 16:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted, CSD case #3 pure vandalism. Entire content was Paul Menchini is an engineer with over 30 years of experience doing absolutly nothing. Paul Menchini enjoys such activities as looking at half-naked pictures of usher, eating hamburgers and hotdogs, and eating whelks. Paul Menchini's favorite show is Barney. Paul Menchini weights over 300 pounds and intends someday to go for the world record of world's fattest man. Contributor is an IP whose only other contribution has been to vandalise and then restore the whelk article. Andrewa 18:58, 10 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon J Pownall

notable? Nateji77 15:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This individual has developed "Rapid Gold Repairs" and a number of other frameworks within Psychotherapy in the UK, now being applied by over 400 therapists in a rnage of dicsiplines. His work into perception has drawn acrtive discussion within the profession and he has lectured internationally in Applied Psychotherapy - I think so....

His case work with over 800 clients and specialist work with Adult Survivors of Childhood Abuse has be drawn upon in teaching and developing rapid cognitive approaches to this area.

Yrs....A Morley PhD, Dip Psch

  • Comment by 62.140.196.133. This IP created the article originally. Average Earthman 16:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "Rapid Gold Repairs": 0 google hits. Let us wait until he invents Rapid Platinum Repairs. Mikkalai 01:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • moving this to the talk page. Nateji77 16:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of peer review, reads more like self-promotion, advertising. Wyss 19:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the moment. See the article talk page. Andrewa 19:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the moment, see my reply at the article talk page. A plain, nonnotable therapist. Mikkalai
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 02:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless new evidence is found, delete per findings documented on the article's talk page. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A "gifted therapist" ? Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations are provided. Promotional, so would need a complete rewrite, and I'd require some academic cites to accept his qualifications (and I mean real ones, not plausible looking ones that can actually be obtained by a journalist's dead cat). Google scholar has nothing appropriate for G Pownall, nothing at all for GJ Pownall, Gordon Pownall, etc. I can't find anything at all anywhere for 'Rapid Gold Repairs', so can't judge that's importance. Average Earthman 12:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons mentioned above. Carrp | Talk 04:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article fails to mention what it is that he has written, no book title (S) and ISBN. He definately has not had his writings published in scientific or humanities journals, Delete.--nixie 04:33, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lake dialect

A web search yielded no information on this so-called "dialect". I am therefore inclined to believe it is made up. A request for sources I made on the contributor's talk page has gone unheeded. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 15:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Update: This obituary [6] seems to confirm there is an Italian-American neighborhood in Newton known colloquially as "The Lake", and that some residents there have created their own dialect. I still don't believe an article on the "Lake dialect" is warranted, though. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 15:52, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unintelligible local dialects are not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 19:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, we in the linguistic community call "unintelligible dialects" languages, and languages, I believe, are inherently notable. I'd like to see some verification that this actually exists though. — Ливай | ☺ 21:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to tell you this, but you're deeply mistaken and might wish to consult any standard reference text for a quick refresher on the difference between a language and a dialect. Further, my use of the word intelligible was a reference to its use in the article, as an example of (and commentary on) its unencyclopedic tone. Wyss 04:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with the debate over what is a "language" and what is a "dialect" and some political/cultural factors often factor into people's decision over whether to call something a language or a dialect, but current usage of what constitutes a language in a purely linguistic sense seems to be based on mutual intelligibility, which is admittedly hardly a straightforward criterion, and many continuums and varying degrees of intelligibility exist that cloud the issue, e.g. Dutch/German, Danish/Norwegian/Swedish, Hindi/Urdu, etc. If it is a mixture of Italian and New England English, this could mean many things from a full-fledged pidgin (unlikely but such things are known to happen) to English with some Italian words and a heavy accent, and if the mutual intelligibility of this speech with American English is in question I think we should keep the content to see if we can further investigate the matter rather than simply deleting it. — Ливай | ☺ 08:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So, keep for now. — Ливай | ☺ 08:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Huh? This has nothing to do with any political debate over some spoken dialect with characteristics of a discreet language and I guess I should repeat, my use of the term intelligible was meant as a comment on the article's tone, not the characteristics of the dialect. The question addressed by this VfD is whether or not this specific local neighbourhood dialect is encyclopedic (there are thousands of these around the world, they're a natural phenomenon of language). Wyss 17:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Keep for now (the obit above seems a decent citation); hope to get some solid expansion on this, possible move if it turns out there is a better name. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:09, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, local minor dialect, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 02:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • With all due respect to Ливай, this article doesn't establish that the "Lake dialect" even exists. I say, the creator(s) have five days' grace period in which to establish the encyclopedicity of this dialect. If they haven't by then, delete. (P.S. If I typed in "Lake dialect" into Wikipedia's search box, I'd probably expect to find something on the dialect of the Lake District in England.) --Angr 10:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Newton is a close suburb of Boston with a population of about 90,000 in all, and 12% of the population is of Italian ancestry. Nonantum (The Lake) is one of 14 "villages" within Newton, and is predominantly Italian-American. Newton is a cosmopolitan, quite wealthy, suburb and it is hard to believe that any neighborhood of it would be isolated enough to develop a distinctive and enduring dialect beyond a few minor vocabulary variations. The obituary referenced above says the dialect was created by "a few old-timers" who blended Italian, English, and Romany (Gypsy). That doesn't sound very notable, but if it has some linguistic or social characteristics that have made it of interest to scholars, I'll change my vote. --BM 14:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably a joke; article has no evidence there is any such dialect. Cut the link from lake (disambiguation) when this one goes. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:18, 13 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Shit

neologism at best. Nateji77 15:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Inter 16:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment In Russia we have a card game called that. I'm not lying! Grue 17:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's no neologism in Australia, but a very well-established term although used far more often in spoken than written English. I wonder whether it might redirect to Beelzebub? It's one of the suggested translations, and seems to me a very likely one although people tend to avoid it for obvious reasons (we even have a slightly bowdlerised article on our normally unabashed Wikipedia). The capitalisation is wrong IMO, it should be king shit but that's easily fixed. No vote as yet. Andrewa 18:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A real slang term, that belongs in wiktionary. Kappa 18:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary if it's deemed widespread enough. Otherwise delete. But don't keep in Wikipedia. Isomorphic 19:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial construction, dicdef. Wyss 19:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, I can vouch for the term being real. It's even in an episode of Mr. Show [7]. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The term is real, but this is hardly an article, and I can't see it ever being one. If it's going to be listed in wiktionary or some place it needs a better "definition" than this. Delete -Kaiser Scheiße 07:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I recall it as a real term, but hardly encyclopedic. In fact, if you'll pardon the scatological reference, His Majesty had a kingdom: Turd Mountain. Delete unless someone can find some info on the Russian card game. That might be a truly interesting "weird" article given that colorful title. - Lucky 6.9 00:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki unless someone can update it. Alba 14:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki this straight over to Delete. GRider\talk 20:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 03:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:23, 15 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Smashing

Hardly a notable activity. Mentions some sort of championship, though I'm not sure if even that's notable, and even if it is, it doesn't belong under this heading. --InShaneee 16:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, prolly a joke/hoax, which is why I'll resist any one-liners. Wyss 19:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and maybe move the championship thing to a seperate page. Shoecream 05:43, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Copyvio. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Santa barbara ceramic design

  • Advertising. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, thousands of their pieces have changed hands in secondary markets, and many California glassworks are culturally encyclopedic. This article is helpful. Wyss 19:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Title capitalization needs correcting, though. Wyss 19:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I emailed the author and he says he doesn't care. Wyss 23:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The fact that there might be an article worth writing about this company has no bearing on the fact that the CURRENT "article" is a rather blatant advert. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:02, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I trust Wyss... but if you need more, 8810 web hits for the name as a string, only one Usenet hit but it's from 1999 and calls it "the famous Santa Barbara Ceramic Design company". 5 results on ebay.com at the moment; the auctions ending today are $177 and $189 already. Notable collectible art label. Keep. Samaritan 20:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Now I notice the article is signed and bears a copyright notice. Somebody should email the creator to ask for its release under GFDL then cleanup, or write one afresh. Samaritan 20:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Send to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Samaritan 00:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, copyvio. Ellsworth 22:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, copyright violation. Megan1967 02:45, 11 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hatanimae

Apparently a hoax. I listed it as an accuracy dispute for a couple days. - RedWordSmith 18:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the only Google hit is the disputed Wikipedia page, and anyway it sounds like a hoax to me. Wyss 19:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:46, 11 Feb 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) 20:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boil (disambiguation)

  • I have moved this here from Boil. I believe that the skin infection and the change of phase of matter are the only two things that a user might reasonably be wanting to look up when searching for "boil". The other two entries on this page are dictionary entries. I have moved the infection, which was previously at "Boils", to Boil and added a line at the top clarifying that information about the phases of matter and the boiling point can be found in those respective articles. — Timwi 19:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I don't understand. You are asking us to delete the disambiguation page? Why? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:11, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • The user seems to think that only the common definitions should be included (the skin condition and the change of phase), therefore a disambig is unnecessary. I respectfully disagree. --L33tminion | (talk) 17:02, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with L33tminion on this: this seems harmless at worst. Can't think of any reason to delete it. Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:46, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep by all means. Even if it's true that "the skin infection and the change of phase of matter are the only two things that a user might reasonably be wanting to look up" we'd still need a disambig page for them. --Angr 09:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I see no reason to delete this disambiguation page. Megan1967 08:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I think we should united boil and abscess in one article. Boil is just a form of abscess I think. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 18:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Stormie 19:22, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dualbash

Looks like it is being used as a community/chat page. Unencyclopedic.

  • Delete jk 19:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This and Dual Bash 2 are being used for stories and photos from a Delhi group's parties/roasts. Delete both; these appear to be candidates for speedy deletion. Barno 20:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Jpo 00:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily Deleted as "CSD#3 -- indisputable bad faith addition." SWAdair | Talk 07:00, 12 Feb 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. Stormie 19:22, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dual Bash

Short version of others - community / chat page

  • Delete jk 19:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Jpo 00:53, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily Deleted as "CSD#3 -- indisputable bad faith addition." SWAdair | Talk 07:01, 12 Feb 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. Stormie 19:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dual Bash 2

More of the same chat / community stuff

  • Delete jk 19:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 00:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and the images too. Rhobite 04:02, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily Deleted as "CSD#3 -- indisputable bad faith addition." SWAdair | Talk 07:02, 12 Feb 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 09:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abstract theory

This is mumbo jumbo JoJan 19:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably Speedy delete as patent nonsense. User should be pointed to the sandbox. Barno 21:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Barno. Aleph4 23:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there aren't any references to this theory. Zzyzx11 23:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. - Jpo 00:51, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Abstraction. Megan1967 02:55, 11 Feb 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.

The votes were 4 delete, 2 redirect, 2 keep. dbenbenn | talk 02:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Climate theory

Not encyclopedic JoJan 19:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems like utter nonsense to me. Can this be speedied? Katefan0 21:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. - Jpo 00:51, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, bordering on patent nonsense. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 02:28, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. It's mentioned in that article. Megan1967 02:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Rename (and disambiguate) or delete. The term 'Climate theory' is much more often used in the context of weather, meteorology, and climate change than to refer to the good Baron's theory. Perhaps a disambiguation page at this title, with appropriate links to climate, weather, and psychology topics? I fear that a plain redirect would not take most people where they wanted to go. If there is a substantial amount to be said on the topic then move this article to Climate theory (psychology) or something similar. Otherwise it can quite happily exist as a section within the Baron of Montesquieu's article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur Kappa 19:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Megan1967 is correct. This is neither original research nor patent nonsense. It is the discredited theory of a historical figure. I'm not sure it deserves an independent article, however. The current content is completely redundant with the section in Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu's article. Given that it is discredited, I don't know what could be added. I'm inclined to redirect for now. Future editors can turn it into a disambiguation page when they need it later. Right now, nothing from "what links here" points back to any meteorology topic. Rossami (talk) 22:47, 11 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 03:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tigrawot

Please use this page for voting only. For further discussion, please visit the discussion page. - Gyrofrog 15:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The name of a speaker of the Tigrignan language. This article is a dictionary defintion, & I cannot see how it will become anything more. I have already moved the material to the article on the language (which is currently a stub, & could benefit from some work). Speedy delete if appropriate.

  • Keep, add {{disputed}} tag and expand. Google results look to me like this is used as a term for an ethnic group. Here's one of them: "If there is no peace in Eritrea it is just because of you. If we ingaged at war it is just because of you guys. Tigrawot have been our enemies since day one". [8] Kappa 20:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Tigrignan language. Sc147 00:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Pending - See discussion. Keep and expand. My assumption is that ethnic groups in Ethiopia are distinguished from one another by more than just language. If this is not the case, then merge and redirect to Tigrignan language. One more thing, shouldn't the person who listed this here sign his or her name? I'm not sure a VfD should be started anonymously. OK, I can see your name in the page history, but please consider signing on the page itself. - Gyrofrog 01:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Also note there are separate articles for Amhara and Amharic language. Granted, that's a bit different, since many Ethiopians who are not Amhara do speak Amharic. - Gyrofrog 01:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry about forgetting to sign my articles. One reason I nominate so few. -- llywrch 18:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Tigrignan language. Article will probably stay stubbish at best. Tigrawot only returns 33 Google hits. Megan1967 03:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if an ethnic group name, as ethnic groups are inherently notable, and not just for their language. Merge and redirect if Tigrawot simply refers to a speaker of that language though. — Ливай | ☺ 03:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep appears to be an ethnic group in Ethopia and Eritrea. It would be good if we could expand it from a stub. Capitalistroadster 10:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not a sociologist and do not know any thing on the differences between ethnicity, nationality and the like. What I know is that it is not correct to refer to the Tigray ethnicity as Tigrinya. That was what I edited out from the original entry. The language the Amhara speak is Amharigna (that is, the Amharic language). It would not be correct to refer to the Amhara as Amharigna either.Yewqet 15:02 (GMT) 11 Feb 2005
  • Comment: viewing the [[discussion page I feel a {{disputed}} tag should be added if kept. Kappa 06:42, 14 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zak Whitbread

Not notable JoJan 19:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Liverpool F.C. squad player, we have plenty of articles on equally notable players. sjorford:// 20:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur; it just needs {{cleanup-context}} and organic expansion. Samaritan 20:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia should have an article on all Premiership first team squad players. Philip 00:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Just about qualifies due to international appearances at youth level. 3 League cup and 1 FA cup appearance so far, so not regularly first team. A weaker claim than Scott Carson, who is currently on the bench for Premier League matches since he joined the team - Whitbread isn't. Average Earthman 09:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this - he's famous!
  • Weak keep. His claim is much weaker than Scott Carson, which recently came up on VfD, as Averge Earthman said. JuntungWu 04:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Agree with Philip. GRider\talk 20:15, 14 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 03:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dreamgirl: My Life As a Supreme

Memoirs by Mary Wilson, essentially the story of her group, The Supremes. An anon made it last night to represent a reference to an incorrect fact they attempted to add to the article (ironically, the very reference they claimed supported their fact actually disproves it). Anyways, there's no point to have this article, as nothing links to it except a misformatted re-direct page. The book is covered in all the detail it needs to be covered in within the Supremes and Mary Wilson articles. Redirect, perhaps? --b. Touch 20:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • If it was really "one of the most successful rock and roll autobiographies ever published," or even a reasonably successful one as I'm sure it was, I would like to be able to see it in Category:Autobiographies, Category:1986 books, and either Category:Music books or Category:Popular culture books or something related. Keep, expand (reverse merge information about it from Mary Wilson (singer) and The Supremes?) Samaritan 20:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If we are to reverse-merge (not a bad idea, Samaritan), what should we do about the sequel? Wilson wrote two books: Dreamgirl: My Life as a Supreme covers the Diana Ross years, Supreme Faith: Someday We'll be Together covers the rest of the group's history and Wilson's own solo career. If we make the article about both books, do we need to list it under Dreamgirl & Supreme Faith: My Life as a Supreme (the 2000 reprint/combination title) or do we just need to set up redirects and leave everything in the article that presently exists? --b. Touch 21:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Oooh, good question. I'd think the 2000 combination title, but keep the [year] books categories for the originals (and maybe 2000, especially if anything significant was added). I wish it was possible to pipe membership in categories so it Dreamgirl:... would show as the 1986 book, etc. even if they redirected to a common title. Samaritan 22:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, we did it. The Wilson and Supremes articles were reverse-merged into the Dreamgirl article. I...guess were finished here, then. --b. Touch 00:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Btw, I guess I've changed my vote to Keep. --b. Touch 22:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What makes the redirect misformatted? The article was originally at Dreamgirl: my life as a supreme, and I did a Move to the current title. The redirect is correctly formatted. RickK 20:55, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very well-known autobiography. --Centauri 21:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Mary Wilson. I have that book, there's a cool embossed gold record thing on the cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Mary Wilson (singer), no redirect. Megan1967 03:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Another vote for merge into Mary Wilson. It's a notable book, but it's unlikely anyone looking for information on Wilson or the Supremes would type the title in first. 23skidoo 05:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable biography. If it is the will of the majority to delete this article, then merge with Mary Wilson.Capitalistroadster 10:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Barely notable biography. --JuntungWu 04:11, 12 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1795 in rail transport

It appears that the only 1795 event in rail transport was the birth of a single person. If that's the case, I don't think we really need to keep this entire page. -MatrixFrog 06:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains timeline Category:Timeline of rail transport. slambo 11:12, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comment: I am slowly going through my paper references (books and magazines) looking for dates to add to these timeline pages from railroad history around the world. As railroading in the US began in earnest in the mid 1830s, it's quite likely that I'll find additional births to add to the 1795 page. Since I don't know what they are off the top of my head, I can't just blindly add them, but add them as I find them. slambo 19:23, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • It appears that this nomination was never placed on the main VfD page. So, to be fair, I'm adding it today. My vote remains Keep as I am continuing to add data to other "year in rail transport" articles (see my contribution history); besides, the next fact that I find in my resources could also be from 1795 (I've found three births of people significant to rail transport to put on the 1794 in rail transport article, for example). slambo 20:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I admire slambo's sense of due process. Keep. Samaritan 20:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep --SPUI (talk) 22:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In general I oppose articles destined to stay very short--if this was a one-off on, say, [[1795 in tree-climbing]] I'd vote to delete, or at least merge/redir somewhere. However, as part of a larger series, short articles are OK by me. Lord knows some of the "year in television", film, etc. articles are likely to remain short. This is one case where I agree fully with Samaritan. Niteowlneils 22:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment just how many notable rail transport events could be added to this article? I noticed there is a category for these for every year in rail transport - most of these years just have an entry for birth and death, and nothing much else. No vote as yet. Megan1967 03:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Some of the early railroads (in the U.S. at least) bought earlier turnpike companies and used their rights-of-way. Probably at least one of these turnpikes was founded or opened in 1795. --SPUI (talk) 03:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 09:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and hopefully expand. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that for these earlier years at least (not sure exactly when) it makes sense to organize them under XXXX in transportation. Me might find these pages have substantially more useful information that isn't spread out. For later years (around the 20th century maybe?) they could be broken off if they're too cluttered. -R. fiend 19:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's not disrupt someone's project. R. fiend has a point, though. JuntungWu 05:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's part of a serious project. Attacking the fringes of such a project is likely to seem like a cruel payback for all the effort which is being put into it. Philip 04:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kaibabsquirrel 18:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Carrp | Talk 04:25, 15 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete Religion

Joke. Thue | talk 21:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Article contains the text "To any administrators who think that this is vandalism, it is not, and people really believe this. Please do not delete this page." However, the god of this religion is the "Great Concrete Pack-Mule"; "Concrete Pack-Mule" has as many (0) web or usenets as you'd (0) expect (0). It is not a notable joke. Delete it, sigh. Samaritan 22:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know if "people really believe this" but I sure as hell believe this should be deleted. Phils 22:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 00:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sc147 00:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Jpo 00:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • This page should not be deleted. How would Christians or Jews like it if we deleted their page? Also, this page said that this a new religion! Why would it be on Google yet? It apparently has been kept quiet until now because of fear of people not accepting it as a religion. I certainly accept Christianity and Judaism and all the others, but I don't believe in them. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean everyone doesn't!!! You need to leave this page on because some people do believe in a Great-Concrete-Pack-Mule being the god. You say that it is unbelievable, but its only as unbelieveable as the Christian "God", or the Egyptian Gods, or whatever religion YOU are. i mean, how outrageous is it that "God" created everything? I have a hard time believing that, and scientific facts have an easy time of backing me up. All religions have a beginning, most back in the so called "BC" times, but this one was created more recently. To end, why don't you try thinking about all the crazily insane stuff in YOUR religion, and then you will see that it is not a good thing to do to criticise other people's religions. unsigned comment by anonymous user:24.18.105.189
    • Anonymous user 216.177.244.30 later signed his/her IP to this comment in addition to the vote below and a comment made in the middle of the signed comment by user:Superuser840
  • Hear, hear! unsigned comment by user:Superuser840 who voted below.
  • Delete and strongly consider blocking user for disrupting this page with that above rant. - Lucky 6.9 02:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a determined "Great Concrete Pack-Mule" atheist I'm determined to rob this pernicious doctrine of unwarranted publicity, lest it make converts. Oh, and, utterly non-notable, no Google hits, why can't we speedy-delete things like this? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:16, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Because the risk of error is far too high if editors think that "It's stuff that I've never heard of and that seems a bit wacky." is a valid speedy deletion criterion. I rescued no-self from speedy deletion today, for example. And that's without such expanded CSD criteria. Uncle G 18:25, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
    • See also the Climate theory nomination above. Rossami (talk)
  • Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, original essay/research. Megan1967 03:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Man, I am sick of people promoting their brand new "religion" or "philosophy" in wikiepdia, and acting like we're the damn Pharisees for deleting it. Alright pal, I'll make fun of your religious beliefs all I want, and in return you can make fun of mine. Good luck finding any. Delete. -R. fiend 07:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't delete this. We haven't discovered Wikipedia until recently, and we still need time to put it all online completely. -A loyal follower unsigned comment by anonymous user:216.177.244.30. Comment was somehow deleted from the thread. Now restored.
  • Save. We don't have enough followers to make this big yet, and Wikipedia is our only way of getting it online without having to pay too much money (we are low on funds). -User: Superuser840 07:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • new user whose only contributions so far are to this discussion. Comment was later edited by anon user:216.177.244.30
  • Delete. Boy, is that the wrong argument. In the unfortunate event that your new religion becomes notable rather than remaining in very well-deserved obscurity, then Wikipedia will document it, just like many other religions which don't deserve any more notability than yours does, but regrettably have it. Meanwhile, find some other way to publicize it. --BM 17:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • SAVE THIS SITE! All of your arguments against my religion are irrelevant! Save THis site!216.177.244.30
  • Delete. You seem to be saying that Wikipedia should give you free web space to publicize your idea because you don't want to pay for your own... and not only that, but the idea should be put in an encyclopedia article. That, of course, makes no sense at all. May I suggest some more viable ways to get free publicity:
    • Get some actually free web space at someplace like Tripod, and put it there
    • Post it on a Wiki that's not an encyclopedia, and which will accept your article, like JnanaBase
    • Participate in online discussion boards, and put a link to your site in your sig
    • Stand on street corners and shout your idea at people
      • Tried and true methods. RSpeer 18:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that we should save this site. After all, even if these people did just want to avoid spending money on a site, what problem do you have with their religion staying on Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to compile all human knowledge? I vote save172.157.229.183
    • No, Wikipedia isn't supposed to compile all human knowledge. What gave you that idea? Most of human knowledge is not worth compiling. RSpeer 19:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, by its own admission, it is not notable but only trying to become so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any reason why this should not be speedy deleted as patent nonsense? -- The Anome 17:50, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Alright. If it's a real religion (which I cannot possibly fathom), then ther should be more than a paragraph of information on it, and thus needs to be deleted until better information is obtained. If it is simply a joke (as I would be tempted to think of as FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more likely), we need to get rid of it. Thus, delete this. -- Cabhan 05:20, 15 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 03:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle for Mandicor

This game doesn't seem notable. Google only shows 58 hits. It seems to fall into the same category as the deleted Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Astroseries. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Stratagus. Keep and expandMegan1967 03:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not really right person to say "Keep this article", because I've made this article and I'm main developer of this project. But I'm _not_ going to stop development, before this game is most notable and best of all OpenSource RTS games. And - I know this article is stub. KimmoKM 18:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable right now. Carrp | Talk 04:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Bryce

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warfare prayer

Appears to be a bastardized version of a Catholic exorcism prayer... even if it was exact, I don't see how it's encyclopedic. Author is anon with no other edits. Plugging the exact phrase into Google turns up this Website Virgin Mary's End-Time Prophecies. Wow. Katefan0 22:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I imagine the author was trying to make some sort of point, though I can't fathom what it would be ... CJCurrie 23:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 00:48, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, It could develop into something good, --218.103.148.179 03:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and direct the author to Uncyclopedia, which appears to be more their style. Average Earthman 09:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:27, 15 Feb 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 SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 02:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boob skateboards

I'm really tempted to speedy-delete this one, though I suppose there's always a remote possibility of local significance. Amazing that it's lasted for two days without anyone noticing ...CJCurrie 23:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. and I would also approve of banning this guy's IP... he also seems to be big on vandalism
Delete. Zero hits (once I turned filtering off). Our ratio of cleaners to adders seems to be dropping--I'm now routinely finding undetected vandalism a week to even a month old. Niteowlneils 00:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - Jpo 00:47, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Spinboy 02:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, skate group vanity. Megan1967 03:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Noob. (Oh, someone had to say it...) Delete, of course. Samaritan 09:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as patent nonsense. Neutralitytalk 04:14, Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 01:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F.E.D.S.

Is this magazine widely known? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:11, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) Yes, this magazine is widely distributed and well-known in urban areas, especially on the East Coast. (Previous sentence was added but not signed by anonymous user 69.141.193.181 .) Barno 00:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm going for delete--ZayZayEM 11:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, magazine advertisement. Megan1967 03:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Radiant! 09:22, 12 Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 01:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sith Efrican English

I wouldn't normally recommend deleting a redirect, but this just looks like a cheap accent joke. A google search for "Sith Efrican" reveals three entries, which would seem to imply that it's not very common as a colloquialism. CJCurrie 23:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete joke. Gazpacho 23:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, 3 Google hits, possible prank. Megan1967 03:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but redirects ought to go to Redirects for Deletion. — Ливай | ☺ 03:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Star-Wars-Related bad joke, or possibly just a Regular bad joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think it's anything to do with Star Wars, just a play on the accent (Google returns more links for "Seth Efrica" and "Seth Efrican", however). If there was an actual 'sith efrican' English dialect, like the Australian strine, it might be worth keeping, but as far as I am aware there isn't. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) (...time passess) Oh, hang on, there is in fact an article about South African English, on 'Wikipedia', which is a sort of online encyclopaedia with the twist that anybody can edit it. It's even linked from the article I am recommending for deletion. In my defence it's half past one and there's something wrong with me. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Anybody can edit that Wikipedia thingie! How could that possibly ever work? --BM 13:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 04:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 01:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final of scenarois

Author might be referring to a television show. If not, it's complete gibberish. Not encyclopedic, one way or the other. CJCurrie 23:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 19:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I tagged it for speedy; it's subliterate nonsense. If no one flushes it then my vote is obviously delete. -R. fiend 19:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 13 Feb 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.