Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 19

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 16:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NYLF Liberal Caucus

Vanity article about some kind of group which seems to only contain a handful of members and whose purpose it's hard to decipher. It generates 0 hits on google, an impressive feat. --Preisler 00:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another non-notable promo. I love the line "the specifics of which escape me at the moment". Zzyzx11 00:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• An (apparently failed) attempt to use Wikipedia as a chat room and general workplace for transacting the business of a political group within the NYLF. Speedy Delete. Uncle G 01:06, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 02:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The very definition of vanity. --Sn0wflake 03:10, 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 copyvio. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nelli Kim

Delete - According to the WP:CP policy, after I've written a stub Nelli Kim/Temp to replace copyvio article Nelli Kim, Nelli Kim should be deleted. Please, do it as soon as possible, rewritten article waits ten days already. My above (00:04, 19 Feb 2005) proposal was not compatible with the WP:CP policy - Nelli Kim/Temp should not be deleted. Cmapm 00:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• agree with above. Delete present copyvio and replace. Megan1967 00:33, 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) 05:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free_countries

Not suitable for Wikipedia (cannot be made neutral) --MatthewJ 03:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Everyone has different definitions of free. Foobaz·✐ 05:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A clear and precise definition of "free" cannot be made neutral. Zzyzx11 06:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No country is actually "free", and trying to come up with a short and sweet definition of "freedom" just isn't going to work. Even if all the countries listed generally meet the stated criteria, there will be enough exceptions in all of them to cause endless debates. -R. fiend 06:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It could be made neutral by using using an "Index of freedom" like http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/ Kappa 10:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, can be made neutral. Grue 11:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is subjective and cannot be made NPOV. An Index of freedom article could be acceptable. Carrp | Talk 14:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as it's propagandatic by nature. Radiant! 20:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree that the creation of NPOV Index of Freedom or Indexes of Freedom would be the way to go about handling this topic. Eggplant Wizard 04:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) Can't sustain a log in session, so I show in the history as a dynamic IP - will confirm my activity on Tuesday via my user page
• This is an inherently POV title if the article contains a list of countries considered "free". If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article about the concept of free countries, go ahead, but this is unworkable, so delete it. — Ливай | ☺ 08:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There are also some interesting omissions. All EU members are included except Latvia, Lithuania, and Greece. That's sure to rile up the Europhiles. Japan and South Korea are missing; that wouldn't go over well with a lot of readers. And I'm sure Fidel Castro and Hu Jintao have completely different definitions of freedom altogether, and Wikipedia content has to be just as valid for them as it is for anyone else. — Ливай | ☺ 08:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Change of vote. Keep the reworked article. — Ливай | ☺ 09:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe my edits to the page have fixed all of the major issues, but it should properly be moved to List of Free Countries. Daniel Quinlan 09:36, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this one, but something based on a single freedom ranking and clearly identified as such would be acceptable. The most worrisome aspect of this article for me is how it "combines" two rankings. Plus, as others have said, declaring that such-and-such country is "free" is inherently POV. There's no way anyone can agree on what countries belong on a list like this. Szyslak 10:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • POV is NOT a reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy). If you think the article is POV, make it less so. "Free country" is a valid concept and most of the people can tell if the country is free or not, there are no borderline cases. You can make a separate lists for each of these organisations, but the countries would be the same, so there is no point. Grue 13:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • POV is a reason for deleltion if the subject matter is inheirently POV, as in this case. A List of totally awesome bands should be deleted regardless of who is listed on it. Such is the case with this article. -R. fiend 21:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research and POV as presented. It is original research because the article editors have arbitrarily chosen the measures of freedom to include, and decided what the cutoff scores on each measure should be for inclusion in the list of 'free' countries. If someone wants to write a Measures of freedom article (or better, include it as a section in the Freedom article itself) then write about these metrics; don't process them further. It's also worth noting that full data for two of the three metrics (the Index of Economic Freedom and the Worldwide Press Freedom Index are already included in Wikipedia. The third (Freedom in the World) is linked from the Freedom House article. The article as it stands leaves you wondering about the countries left off the list—were they excluded due to a lack of social freedom, economic freedom, press freedom...or all of the above? Why is mostly free an acceptable level of economic freedom? Deciding that a specific threshold on these metrics is 'free' is irredeemably POV. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • But even if the list is discarded, is not the description of various indices of freedom encyclopedic? — Ливай | ☺ 17:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All POV considerations aside, this article totally overlaps with the existing articles Index of Economic Freedom and Freedom House. Visitors who wish to find information regarding the relative freedom of nations in the opinion of those organizations can use the external links.
  • So why not make this a short page that sends readers to those articles? I feel there ought to be something at this title, if not to help people looking for information on the relative freedom of nations, then at least to prevent another list like this from being submitted. — Ливай | ☺ 21:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually that is a good point, 'free country' and plural thereof should point somewhere (maybe a disambig is best, listing the various types of freedom and redirecting to those pages). If not, somebody is bound to make a new article here sooner or later. Radiant! 21:30, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a redirect to Freedom, then? That's probably where these measures should be mentioned. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. — Gwalla | Talk 02:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename, although some qualifications for what the sources determine is or is not "free" would be helpful. -Sean Curtin 00:22, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia cannot work with these subjective categorization schemes. 172 09:35, 26 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) 06:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wily Python

Reads like vanity. I might have thought it a description of a fictional character, but since "Wily Python Show" gets no Google hits at all -- draw your own conclusions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the above statement is very ironic. Dr. Robert

"The British Army has always fought the Wily Python" , British Officer to Lieutenant Goodbody in Richard Lester's movie "How I won the war" (1967) -- this comment is not by Dr. Robert but by 24.5.82.8, the author of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable. --Woohookitty 02:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "not delete" save as it expands knowledge that is important if in concept alone and that is the mission of Wikipedia. Dr. Robert

• • Boys. if defining and defending a concept is a problem for Wikipedia then argument and dialogue have become passe'. So please use your intellect and not your emotion.

• • • The above quotation,, "The British Army has always fought the Wily Python" is from Dr. Robert as he is also the author but perhaps because he is not as computer savvy as the above nay sayer Antaeus Feldspar he did not make that known. This is about expanding knowledge for the many. Dr. Robert

• • "The British Army has always fought the Wily Python" , British Officer to Lieutenant Goodbody in Richard Lester's movie "How I won the war" (1967)

The above information has been added to the section. Dr. Robert

• Delete Unless someone gives some reliable source. Paul August ☎

• • See the movie Mr. Paul August that is the reliable source. The movie "How I Won the War" is a classic anti-war movie and its DVD version was delayed because of the War On Iraq. The Wily Python is an integral concept to the anti-war message of the movie. Dr. Robert
• Comment -- I do not think one line, or one literary symbol or metaphor from one classic movie is a satisfactory, reliable amount of reference for Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 09:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is poorly written even it is related to How I Won the War. As you can see, we don't have an article on this film yet which is referenced in A Day in the LifeCapitalistroadster 05:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- Did you notice that "Dr. Robert", 24.5.82.8, the author of the article, made a new entry called Dr. Robert? In his comments above, he wikified links to it. I just marked that article as Vfd. Zzyzx11 05:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Um, is Dr. Robert badly translating his own comments from a different language? Delete, nonsense. -R. fiend 06:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Each entry confirm the validity of the Wily Python. You poor dears how I envy your misplaced certitude.
• Again, another "insightful" comment by 24.5.82.8. This person is another example of why the people of the San Francisco Bay Area, specifically Marin County, act strange in the eyes of the rest of the United States. Zzyzx11 06:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot find any notable evidence in the San Francisco Bay Area media, where the Wily Python Show allegedly broadcasts from. Wikipedia is not a forum to post unsubstantiated claims. Zzyzx11 06:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The subject: Wily Python, the references exist but perhaps personal attacks on people in Marin who overwhelmingly opposed the War ON Iraq are not warranted. Perhaps this is the real reason that the Wily Python is so troubling to the "rest" of the USA. My friend you can say what you will but your lack of generosity toward "the other" needs some introspection. Insults don't help. I am sure you meant no harm and it was just a habit that comes when one is isolated online. Certainly if we were face to face you would not speak this way about us. We can do better. Let us try. Your are forgiven.
• Comment -- Sorry, I was in the heat of the argument. I've been hearing too much of the talk show host on KGO radio in San Francisco on air from 2-4pm who frequently talks about the unusual behaviour of people in Marin. But back to the issue: Wikipedia requires notable claims and references from a neutral point of view. Zzyzx11 08:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, not validated, not googlable. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

After considered thought, I have renewed by subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica as my trusted source. You are right, the known world is so much safer than the unknown world. Having been chastised, I for one will no longer venture into the “non-googlable” unknown that goes on just outside my door. Thank you for the inspiration.

Good for you. I'm sure everyone will be much, much happier that you'll be pestering Encyclopedia Britannica and patronizing them instead of us, telling them that if only they were as pretentious intelligent as you, they'd be creating an article around a single line of dialogue from a single movie right away. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a concept like "god is a concept" Perhaps you might even check out Rudyard Kipling as another concept references. "It is better not to know than to be unsure." Bravo young man.

Are you under the impression that we don't hear this line of argument for every inappropriate article we VfD? Hurry along, Encyclopedia Brittanica is tapping their watches and wondering when you're going to show up and explain all about how "God" and "Wily Python" are equivalent in importance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This little line of mine I'm gonna let it shine. Pull the use of Wily Python as the owner of the Wily Python Show revoked your permission to use the Wily Python in any form without prior written permission

You do realize that: 1) you just admitted you invented the thing yourself, and, 2) the owner cannot dictate in what forums his invention is mentioned on the internet? -R. fiend 23:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is not true but believe what you will. I just forewarned you about copyright issues. You're the lawyer; I am not.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 16:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eforge

Appears to be vaporware. Jcsutton 02:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. They should write the program before writing the encyclopedia article. Foobaz·✐ 05:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Well said Foobaz. Zzyzx11 05:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with what those above have said. Josh 21:40, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not even an external link? Longhair 13:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concul with Foobaz, Delete. Radiant! 16:06, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 06:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marauder Corvette

Fancruft. Luigi30 02:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed. Foobaz·✐ 05:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 00:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and improve. It's a whole lot more notable than lot's of other Star Wars articles.-LtNOWIS 08:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Abstaining from now; it's not clear from the article where this ship is from - does it feature in one of the movies? One of the books? One of the roleplaying books? Some fanfic story? Radiant! 10:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The Marauder Corvette is featured prominently in the 2 books of the Han Solo adventures and 1 book of the Han Solo Trilogy. It might also be in a few other novels I haven't read. No movies. I found 946 google entries. -LtNOWIS 01:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are articles on lots of types of SW ships, so we should combine them all into one article or keep them all. Gamaliel

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

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

[edit] Gary Brolsma

This is a redirect to Numa-Numa which is him singing "Dragostea Din Tei" into a webcam. That has been nominated and I don't see why an insignificant teenager needs his own page.

• Delete, not notable, vanity redirect. Megan1967 03:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If numa-numa gets deleted, the redirects to it will be deleted too. If it survives, this should be kept. Kappa 04:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Kappa.-- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Jealous much? ( 70.248.179.218)
• Extreme keep. It's just a cheap redirect. I hardly doubt that Gary Brolsma himself created a redirect, and redirects aren't really vanity anyhow. There is already a VfD posted for Numanuma, so if that article does not survive then redirect this over to Dragostea Din Tei. —RaD Man (talk) 19:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • From the Dragostea Din Tei article: Gary Brolsma is a teenager from Saddle Brook, New Jersey. Brolsma, reportedly, is not happy with his fame. Brolsma has since stopped taking phone calls from the media, cancelling an appearance on NBC's Today Show and not taking calls from The New York Times regarding the story. [1]
• Abstaining for now. I note that the Dragostea Din Tei article contains more information about various Flash renditions thereof by amateurs, than about the song itself. Does a popular song merit its own article? And if so, shouldn't it be about the song rather than simple internet spoofs? Radiant! 20:48, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems that all the spoof into has been added by users after the original article was put together. The song definitely deserves an article. Hedley 22:22, 19 Feb 2005
• My vote is to keep everything under "Dragostea Din Tei". Of course the internet parodies should be within that entry, along with mention of Gary Brolsma. But I don't see why he gets his own page.
  • anon user vote not counted.Mikkalai 19:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with the above. It's just a cheap redirect. Wikipedia is an excellent encyclopaedia of popular culture and we should always try to improve it as such. Haukurth 19:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this page absolutely. If I had a thousand votes I would vote a thousand times to keep. This internet phenomenon is very significant and getting rid of it would require also getting rid of Badgerbadgerbadger.
  • anon user vote not counted.Mikkalai 19:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. The name is definitely searchable. Mikkalai 19:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, The relevent info is already covered in the Numa section. Gary is not noteworthy outside of his 15 minutes of fame. If we allowed articles an every Joe Smoe out there wiki would turn into MySpace.Uopmegabytes 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 06:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Differences Between Pokémon and Digimon

Not notable; the two series are inherently unrelated. As kelvSYC put it, "Do we need something like Comparison of apples and oranges?" --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 02:29, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not meaningful. --Sn0wflake 03:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of VfD voters need to read up on the differences. Kappa 03:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you assume the voters didn't read the article? I read it and found absolutely nothing of use or that somebody couldn't point out within three seconds of watching each show. --Sn0wflake 14:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I know some voters need to read this kind of article because they say things like "digimons are basically the same as pokemons right?". The article would be useful for people who've heard of them, but haven't had the opportunity to watch both shows. Kappa 06:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • And this article explains how very different they are. Lets see: 1. they have different names, 2. the plots are not identical; they battle evil in two slightly different ways, 3. digimon speak a real language (most notable difference listed), 4. their individual names are a bit different, 5. they evolve in slightly different ways, 6. they are not identical in every way, 7. digimon are sometimes scarier. Wow. Yes, when something rips off a popular idea, they don't copy it 100%. We get the idea. I suppose we'll be seeing difference pages for "Go-bots and Transformers", "7-Up and Sierra Mist", "Lord of the Rings and Sword of Shannara", "According to Jim and King of Queens", ad nauseam. Please, let's not go down this road. -R. fiend 07:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • So as we can see, some consider that pokemons and digimons are "inherently unrelated", and some consider that it's a ripoff, but not quite 100%. But this page should be apparently be deleted in order to prevent any other difference pages from showing up. Kappa 07:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No they don't. Foobaz·✐ 05:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for so very many reasons. -R. fiend 06:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Sparky says. Radiant! 09:44, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. They are different. So what? --BM 15:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above. Carrp | Talk 15:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is encyclopedic, what's to stop someone from creating "Differences Between Days of our Lives and Law and Order" or "Differences Between American Idol and Dr. Phil"? Szyslak 05:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some other possibilities: differences between "Alien" and "Aliens"; between "Scarlet O'Hara" and "Blanche DuBois"; between "Windows NT" and "Windows 2000"; not to mention the possible differences between "Ashlee Simpson" and "Ashley Judd", or between "Ashlee Simpson" and "Bart Simpson". vlad_mv 06:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Windows NT and Windows 2000 would be helpful. Kappa 06:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Or even more likely differences between "Ashlee Simpson" and her notable older sister, whats-her-name. --BM 12:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Differences between Windows NT and Blanche DuBois. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • But where will it end? If reduction ad absurdum can get this article deleted, what will stop Elvis Presley getting deleted in case a random teenager with a guitar uses it as a precedent? Kappa 08:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Differences between X and Y are not generally encyclopedic. If one is clearly a derivative of the other, and there is a large chance of mistaking one for the other, some non-obvious differences may be considered for listing under that article. But in this article, "pokemon is about a boy who wants to be a famous trainer and collects animals" and "digimon is about a group of kids trying to save the world from evil digital things" is extremely obvious. Radiant! 11:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • How can it be obvious to someone who's never seen a digimon show? Kappa 13:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I think we're revolving around the same arguments here. IMHO, the role of Wikipedia is not to make this obvious through an individual article, even to someone who hasn't seen the shows. Users should be perfectly able to read the Pokémon and Digimon pages and draw the differences themselves. If there's any risk of confusion, one could simply add a "Not to be confused with ..." line on the top of the main article. The point of the irony above was this: if we establish a precedent for such separate articles, what would stop us from creating them ad nauseum, for instance, for every sequel of every movie? There are obvious plot, casting, production differences between "Alien", "Aliens" and "Alien³", not to mention blatant stylistic differences due to the fact that each had a different director; and their names are so similar someone who hasn't seen any of the movies could easily get confused. vlad_mv 14:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't think the users would thank you for making them wade through a 37k page when a summary of the differences was already available somewhere else. Differences between items in a series like Alien could and should be discussed in the main article of that series. Why should someone who's interested in the development of that series have to 5 read separate articles with repeated information? Kappa 20:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • I see your point, but that's a different claim: namely, that the Alien Series should have a separate article, because all movies taken together do form a notable unity. For the sake of concision, I'll leave that discussion aside for the moment. But I'll grant that: if we all agreed that such a page should exist, I'd be the first to approve discussion of the differences between the movies there. Now, coming back to the issue: are we prepared to say that Pokémon and Digimon form a coherent and notable unity? I would say no, at least not in the same way as the Alien Series obviously does. And if the answer is no, the comparison page should be ruled out. vlad_mv 00:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • A work and it's ripoff(s) work form a unity. Even if they aren't a ripoff, they are two things of the same kind, like Judaism and Christianity, which we have an [[article comparing. Kappa 09:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • The fact the two things are "of the same kind" is not sufficient to say that they form a unity. Oranges and apples are of the same kind and do not form such unity - which means, if we allow a Comparison of apples and oranges page, we might as well have to allow a Comparison of cuccumber and squash, Comparison of parsley and chives, etc. Neither do Blanche DuBois and Scarlet O'Hara, for that matter. The list of counterexamples could go on indefinetly. The fact that it is a ripoff (if it indeed is) is not sufficient either. IMHO, the comparison with Judaism and Christianity seems to show clearly why we shouldn't allow this one, and not the opposite. vlad_mv 10:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • Apples and oranges do not form a unity by themselves, but they belong to the unity fruit and do not resemble each other very much within that realm. Apples and pears resemble each other quite a lot, and I'm disappointed to see nothing discussing the difference between them in pome. Similarly gourd should discuss differences between melons, squashes and cucumbers. Kappa 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic at all. It's like making an article on the differences between Star Wars and Star Trek. Who gives a damn about this really. Wareware 02:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteWhile we do have some stuff like this, such as Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity, they really need to have more in common than digimon and Pokemon.-LtNOWIS 04:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree that they have to have more in common than Digimon and Pokemon (the article doesn't really establish any siginifant differences at all), but it does need more importance. The differences between Christianity and Judiasm affects anyone who is a practicing member of either religion, and many who aren't. The differences between Digimon and Pokemon are important only to a few elementary schoolers and other fans who already know what the differences are. -R. fiend 04:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's also important to any parent who wants to talk to their child about their hobby, or me when I have to vote on these things. I don't want to have to read the whole digimon article, jeez.

Kappa 09:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I guess you're probably right about the importance thing, R. friend. Of course, no 2 cases are the same. And Kappa, while I feel for you, you or anyone else can probably find a similar article somewhere else in cyberspace. Or just admit humble ignorance. -LtNOWIS 01:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 02:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. May not be the greatest article in its present form, but I (having never seen either series) thought they were basically the same thing, and found an article pointing out that this was not the case useful. -- pne 10:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 08:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 17:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 06:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Neopets

This page is unencyclopedic and seems a lot like self-advertising for the websites mentioned there. Josh 03:15, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, dictionary definition, forum advertisement. Megan1967 04:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is not an advertisement since the forum is a common place for Anti-Neopians. Also, the "dictionary definition" is because it is, as of right now, incomplete. This page, when it has more content, will provide more valuable information and I believe it is important to users concerned with this topic. --Tezeti 05:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement for obscure forum. Foobaz·✐ 05:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is more like an ad. Zzyzx11 05:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This deffinately isn't an ad. It is info on a fast growing web movement.Blackdove
  • Note: User's second edit.
  • Note: Blackdove has made no edits outside of voting on this VfD (His/her first edit was to mistakenly vote to keep on the Talk:Anti-Neopets page).
  • Note: The above isn't relevant to the voting process and should not impact anyone's vote
• Question. Why should Anti-Neopians have its own article when it can be put on Neopets#Controversy and criticism? Zzyzx11 06:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 06:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Patently silly, and not a valid meme. Delete Radiant! 09:44, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any useful information could be included on Neopets#Controversy and criticism. Carrp | Talk 14:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you read carefully, you will find that Anti-Neopets is an organization, and does NOT deserve to be in Neopets Controversy and Criticism. Nemmy 17:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Forum not large enough to warrant an article. Xezbeth 17:29, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Since the article will not be kept otherwise, I am removing all external links from the article. Please adjust your votes accordingly. --Tezeti 17:59, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you're missing the point here. It's not about the external links, it's about the organization not being notable enough for inclusion (if somebody hated apples and started the Anti-Apple Action, we wouldn't include that either). Radiant! 19:35, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Please see the post tezeti made to the 26-member forum advertised in the article pleading for users to come here and create an account to vote keep and push their POV agenda. Blatant attempt to cheat the VfD process. Something to consider while deciding whether to vote keep or delete.
• Comments
  • I have fixed the article considerably since it was proposed as a candidate for deletion. Regarding Reene's prior comments, the forum is the main forum, so it is a valuble external link and not just an advertisement. Please see the post Reene made on the forum and you can determine yourself which post has more POV. --Tezeti 16:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, No-More-Neopets.tk is owned by Mae_Noelle and the forum is basically owned by a group of Administrators. I agree that maybe the geocities link should not have been there, so I removed it. However, I believe this article is written in a neutral manner and contributes information to Wikipedia. --Tezeti 16:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would not make self-promotion pages on Wikipedia, since it is an online encyclopedia and not a forum or blog. This is a group of people, of which there were over 100 of at one point, and I am simply stating their beliefs and history of the movement. --Tezeti 16:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know of at least 10 other Antineopian sites, however I chose to include the most viewed ones in this entry, which excludes my own web page. --Tezeti 16:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for explaining this all, but this whole movement still doesn't seem very notable to me. You say there were over 100 people at one point, which indicates that the movement was never that large to begin with, and is already on its decline. Checking the Antineopian forum, I find 26 members only. That's not much for an internet forum.Radiant! 21:00, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• The membership is not declining, the reason that the membership has been reduced is that the original forum has been shut down for unknown reasons. Therefore, many of the members could not find this new one. The forum was started about one month ago and already has 26 members. I know of over 10 websites made by different users that are dedicated solely to Anti-Neopets. --Tezeti 21:41, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Which indicates a whole 10 people are pissed off enough about being frozen to create a hate website and rant about how much Neopets sucks, the claims they make varying in veracity and some of them being outright false and slanderous. Even then, 100 members is not a lot when you consider how many users use Neopets. I could whip up 10 good looking anti-Tezeti websites in under a day (and wouldn't need to use free web hosts like Geocities to do it, as most/all of these so-called anti-neopets websites do). So could we then add the Anti-Tezeti article to the 'pedia? (note that I'm being facetious.)
• Delete. This isn't even noteable in the sphere of Neopets. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The grand finale: The current forums were made by Tezeti and are less sucessful, having only 26 members at the moment. They wouldn't be notable if they had ten times the number. One hundred times the number, and I might wake up. Non-notable. Delete. -- Hoary 07:45, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Keep: I only say this because I have cleaned up the article in question. It was too much like an advertisment. I do think the subject deserves an entry but not to the extent that it advertises other websitses. Wikipedia is not for that. I have no username at the moment, but i have made numerous positive additions to many articles involving the city of Vancouver. D.
  • Note that the above user has only six edits, five of which are in this VfD.
• Delete. A 28-user forum with less than 2000 posts is not notable --Carnildo 08:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 09:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Idea: the now cleaned up article would merge in great with the original Neopets article under contreversy. D. 9:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Maybe once they kill a Neopet or two... Longhair 14:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Why are only the "Keep" voters getting unsigned negative notes put under their name? Isn't this an attempt at POV? Besides, the number of edits they have made is not relevant to the voting process. Thank you for cleaning the article, though shouldn't it have the history of the movement as well? ---- unsigned comment from User:Tezeti

• Those aren't "negative votes", people are merely pointing out the history of the user. The number of edits they have made is very relevant to the voting process, as it is standard procedure here to allow the tallying administrator to discount the votes of new users if in his/her judgment these users appeared on Wikipedia merely to influence a particular vote and do nothing else. This applies to both keep and delete votes. Gamaliel 17:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. unencyclopaedic, lack of references, advertising suspicious & all reasons explained above. --Neigel von Teighen 17:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to point out that the forum and movement is growing considerabnly. One example is that it has gained two new users today, suggesting rapid growth. Also, regarding the above comment, there was never intended to be any advertising and I have removed all external links which could be interpreted as 'advertisements'. --Tezeti 02:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • For comparison, a moderately active forum I'm on has 53,000 registered members, and as of right now (4 AM Eastern US time), has 219 people looking at the boards, and gained two members in the last five minutes. I consider this to be borderline notable. --Carnildo 09:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- pne 14:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 08:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Oberiko 12:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Has legitimate information and is in sync with other articles. ...at 01:16, 2005 Feb 28, 70.178.75.237 forgot to press the twiddle key.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 06:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rimrock

Dicdef, formerly a copyvio dicdef. Wiktionary and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and transwiki. Inter 12:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or delete--but it's now a geology stub as well as a disambig. 12.74.168.165 20:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed mind. 12.74.168.228 00:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a decent stub now. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Much less dicdef than before. Withdrawing my deletion vote. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:55, 23 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 16:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Janusz

The introduction states, "One could ask, what is "Janusz". Well, this all started in the year 2005 between January and Febraury, and was thought up by the grade 8 students (gifted program of Mr. Prugo) of St. Jerome, located on Paisley Road in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada." I state, "Vanity neologistic toilet humor, of no interest whatsoever to anybody." —Korath (Talk) 03:27, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, trivial essay, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonathunder 05:38, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, this all started in the year 2005 between January and Febraury. -- Too new and not notable. Zzyzx11 05:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm trying to remember the name of the month between January and February, but it's not coming to me. Anyway, 'delete this as someone's personal slang. I've made up dozens of new terms, but you don't see me writing articles about them (though it has been my goal to introduce the word "hirsh" to the English language). -R. fiend 06:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Yet another group of schoolchildren so eager to immortalize their neologism by putting it in the dictionary ... that they add it to the encyclopaedia instead. Delete. I point out moreover that the final paragraph makes the page a copyright problem, as the page's author is not licencing the copyright on what xe wrote according to the GFDL. Uncle G 01:54, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Keep. If slang is not allowed in Wikipedia then why is there a definition for "Yo" as in "Yo, what's up?". In the English language, Janusz is an interjection. It is linguistically interchangeable with other words. If you have a problem with this, then complain about "Yo" as well, otherwise take this Janusz somewhere else. 24.100.250.167 08:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• slang is allowed. Junk someone just made up isn't. -- John Fader 20:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the problem is not that it's an interjection, the problem is that this word appears to have no general currency. Kappa 08:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it--nixie 12:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This "article" is turning into a chat page. should have been speedy deleted. RickK 00:04, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject of the article falls below the threshold for notability, and the article itself contains no encyclopedic facts. -- John Fader 00:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)'
• Keep'.It is a very informative article on the life of schoolchildren. Psychologists could use this in their research.It is a good, informative, and legitimate article. Otherwise, the article on "Yo" would be removed as well. (comment added by User:199.43.172.254)
• Keep. This is just as justified as anything else on wikipedia. Slang is allowed, so should be Janusz. Please take this Janusz somewhere else. (comment added by User:199.43.172.254, same as vote above)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. User test, blanked. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Torrentmind

Copyvioforumvertisement. 74 unique google hits, most of which look like links to specific files therein from similar forums. —Korath (Talk) 03:30, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I didn't find one link that linked to a file inside of torrentmind. Torrentmind is only a forum, nothing else. If you are going to delete this, you might as well delete filesoup as well. It's only a forum. What could be changed in order to avoid deletion?
  • FYI: The above question was asked by the author of the article, Burgerpardis. Zzyzx11 05:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point, we might indeed delete filesoup as well. See below. Radiant! 12:39, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- Burgerpardis, why did you copy images from that web sites navigation bar and paste them directly into the article's body text? Zzyzx11 05:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, First of all there is no direct link to the actual site. Second, where do we draw the line of what websites we should cover? Obviously their notability (or lack thereof) counts. How large should a community be before they deserve honorable mention? Inter 12:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Good question, actually. Let's see... websites (or forums) for bands, games, stores etc do not deserve a separate article, but should be listed under the article for that band, game, store, etc (and of course only if said b/g/s/etc deserves an article in the first place). Pure web services are only notable if known to the world outside the internet (e.g. eBay, Amazon, Google). The same would apply to pure chat or talk forums/boards (and they generally aren't known to anyone except their members). Even if a website is notable, a list of members or admins is not. This is of course IMHO. Radiant! 12:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • And that means that Torrentmind should be deleted and that a link to the forum could be added to the main Bittorrent article if said forum is indeed notable among BT'ers. Radiant! 12:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would support moving this and the Filesoup article under the bittorrent article. I could edit the bittorrent one to include some community forums for Bittorrent technical help, which is what these sites really are about. Burgerpardis
      • That sounds fair. Radiant! 21:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Aside from all the commented mess... I count 4 deletes, 2 keeps. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Filesoup

Internet forum. Since internet is full of forums, I'd say they are almost by definition not notable. This one is for sharing bittorrent files. As Korath puts it, "copyvioforumvertisement". Radiant! 12:36, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• No Deletion, No reason to delete this article, it is conform to the Encyclopedia and the will to inform --User:anonymous 10:08, 01 March 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with this sentiment. See discussion on Torrentmind directly above. Inter 21:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, only reason is non-notability. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, i would like to see this deleted too as its not a notable addition.
  • unsigned comment by anon user:62.252.128.25 whose other recent edits are being challenged as vandalism
• No Deletion I would support moving this Filesoup article under the bittorrent article. I could edit the bittorrent one to include some community forums for Bittorrent technical help, which is what these sites really are. Burgerpardis
  • new user whose only contributions to date have been to this and to the article nominated above. You have to start somewhere Burgerpardis
• No Deletion I quote a Filesoup member: "i don't know if i'd argue for TM, but in defense of the filesoup one, there is a suprnova.org entry and since FS is the oldest/first bittorrent forum website you could probably argue that way" FileSoup isn't just a forum, it is *THE* forum for bittorrent activity. --67.64.43.158 01:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • this is the anonymous user's only edit to Wikipedia
• Delete. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• It makes no sense that suprnova.org has an entry, and filesoup can't. As said before, filesoup was founded before suprnova was even a thought. Burgerpardis
  • fixed, only one vote.
    • Excellent point, Suprnova is now also nominated for deletion. For what it's worth, I believe the best solution would be to put them all in the main BitTorrent site - that's arguably where people would look first. Radiant! 08:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you nominate that one for deletion, I may vote to delete it, too. "There are other articles about less notable topics" is not a very useful argument. We know that already; it's a given around here. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No Deletion That makes little sense." 'There are other articles about less notable topics' is not a very useful argument. We know that already" - Then delete them in order of importance, and stop picking on this specific entry. If you know other topics are less-worthy, then go after them first. Common sense. --66.140.73.253 03:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • this is the anonymous user's only edit to Wikipedia
      • We delete them in the order in which they were found, because that is the most convenient way of going around things. If you would be so kind as to give us a list of all WikiPedia articles in order of importance, we would start at the low end and delete from there. Until then, well, sorry. Radiant! 08:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though I find the subject distasteful. The usage statistics at the end of the article are impressive and match those listed on the site, and there's no reason to think they're lying. Compare to Torrentmind's "Most users ever online was 74 on Feb 11 2005, 12:00 AM". —Korath (Talk) 09:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• At first glance this one appears borderline, but it does rake in a significant number of hits on google so I'm going to err on the side of keep. —RaD Man (talk) 10:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This first-person primary source historical essay about a web site belongs on the web site itself, not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting service, let alone a web directory. Encyclopaedia-worthy web sites are capable of hosting their own "about" pages. Delete. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 17:08, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suprnova.org

We're discussing other BitTorrent-related sites (Torrentmind and Filesoup, see above), and whatever decision applies to them should also apply here. I'm in favor of Merging the lot of them into the main BitTorrent article. Radiant! 08:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) Okay, I shouldn't listen to sock puppets stating "It makes no sense that X has an entry, and Y can't.". Request withdrawn. Radiant! 11:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Half a million google hits says keep it right where it is buddy. —RaD Man (talk) 08:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah. Keep. —Korath (Talk) 09:43, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• The most obvious Keep I have done so far. Xezbeth 09:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• This was attempted with Goatse.cx - merging it into Shock site, but there was too much information on goatse so the article got spun out again. Keep, as I only see the goatse scenario repeating itself. --Dave2 10:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• One of the most notable BitTorrent sites, if not the most notable. Strong Keep. cesarb 23:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a very notable web site -- Longhair 03:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Probably the most notable BT site. -- pne 15:38, 24 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) 11:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World of Nixon

Antaeus Feldspar tagged this, but apparently didn't finish up. Looks like a non-notable website advertisement to me; 61 unique google hits, of which about a third aren't relevant. —Korath (Talk) 03:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As it is now, it is just an ad to a web site. Zzyzx11 05:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not Delete. Its a little backround information on one of the few great art sites on the web ran by one person. Radioactivemonkey 11:07, 19 Feb 2005 (EST) -- Radioactivemonkey has five edits, all to his user page or to this VfD.
• Sorry I didn't finish the original VfD; I was having browser trouble and didn't even realize until this morning that the tagging of the original article had actually completed. My vote is Delete, for the reasons Korath expressed so well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I have been sent notice of the existance of this page (I am the creator of the website in question). While I would admittedly not mind a constructive or philosophical discussion of the themes in my project in a wikipedia entry, I do not see the current entry in a positive light (it is more of an anti-ad, inflammatory and does not portray my project in an objective light). So, I accept either rewrite/expansion or deletion, whatever the others choose - I will not edit this entry myself because I would be biased (even though I would be greatly tempted to). (NOTE: I did make the referrer to "World of Nixon" from "World of nixon", because I hate the mix of small and large letters. I did not write any of the content of the entry, though, nor did I originally create it). -- splattergnome.
• Delete. Non-notable. RickK 00:41, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• With 278 google hits, I'm afraid the site is not very notable. Delete. Radiant! 10:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CSTAR 16:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable schools in the United States

This article is already more than 30 kilobytes. I suggest moving the contents to five different pages or subpages to break it all up and make this a disambiguation page. 69.212.70.25 23:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Page 1
  • This page will contain 9 different states and the District of Columbia.
  • Main article: List of notable schools in the United States (Alabama-Florida), List of notable schools in the United States/Alabama-Florida

• Page 2
  • This page will contain 10 different states.
  • Main article: List of notable schools in the United States (Georgia-Maine), List of notable schools in the United States/Georgia-Maine

• Page 3
  • This page will contain 10 different states.
  • Main article: List of notable schools in the United States (Maryland-New Hampshire), List of notable schools in the United States/Maryland-New Hampshire

• Page 4
  • This page will contain 10 different states.
  • Main article: List of notable schools in the United States (New Jersey-Rhode Island), List of notable schools in the United States/New Jersey-Rhode Island

• Page 5
  • This page will contain 11 different states.
  • Main article: List of notable schools in the United States (South Carolina-Wyoming), List of notable schools in the United States/South Carolina-Wyoming

• The above was my suggestion. If anyone wants to go ahead with it, then just do it. 69.212.70.25 23:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This, I changed my mind. It will only confused the viewers. 69.212.70.25 04:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. We still haven't figured out whether the District of Columbia or Washington, D.C. is the correct term.
• I'm in favor of deleting the entire list, as it is inherently un-encyclopedic (qv the List of Shopping Malls in VfD/Feb 18th). It's far too tempting for people to simply list all the schools they know in here, and most schools aren't notable to begin with. Radiant! 09:48, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • See, for example, the entries for Tacoma, Washington—every last elementary, middle, and high school is listed there as "notable". —Korath (Talk) 20:26, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wouldn't a category be much more appropriate? Carrp | Talk 14:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The category would be just as unencyclopedic as the list. Radiant! 20:51, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently POV. —Korath (Talk) 20:26, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to List of schools in the United States. Then the schools don't have to be notable. 68.23.97.209 23:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't you delete other lists (List of schools in Japan, List of schools in New Zealand, List of schools in Singapore, List of schools in the United Kingdom, etc.) too then, huh? 68.23.97.209 00:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep Don't bother with it anymore. 68.23.97.209 02:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, I've nominated those for deletion as well. Any others you want to mention? Radiant! 08:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV title. The above question by the anon is a good one. Why don't we? The List of schools in Connecticut article is still here, isn't it? RickK 00:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, actually, List of schools in Connecticut isn't there. 68.23.97.209 02:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Good. Neither is List of schools in Albuquerque, and let's keep it that way. Radiant! 08:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV as Korath says. VfD isn't a forum to discuss splitting an article into different pages. And, to the anon who started all this, please note that I probably wouldn't have paid enough attention to vote for deleting the list if you hadn't spammed my user page. It backfired. 23skidoo 04:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move to List of secondary schools in the United States. Delete the primary schools. Neutrality^talk 04:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is inherently POV. While selection of articles based on their notability or lack therof is a POV decision of sorts reached by community consensus, actually asserting within an article that x is notable (implying that y is not notable) is a de-facto promotion of a viewpoint. I oppose a blanket merger & creation of a "list of notable schools" on the same grounds - if something is notable, it should have its own article, or be discussed in an article -- When a topic is already wikiworthy, it may then be included in list of notable ____ (IMO, of course) Eggplant Wizard^TalkSee notes in my user page about login problem 06:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 06:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is inherently subjective. Indrian 06:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I vote for breaking up the article into the aforementioned smaller sections named "List of schools in the United States (Alabama-Florida", etc. Then we can get rid of this monster. Rockingharder 06:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, move to List of schools in the United States, split into List of schools in Alabama et al.. And this isn't VfD-worthy, really. James F. (talk) 10:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 68.72.134.124 22:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If a school is notable, and you have information establishing this, put that information into an article about the school. If you don't have information that establishes the notability of the school, you have no business listing it in this so-called "article". Moreover, whether a school is notable is an opinion. A list is not the place to express opinions, since the format is not consistent with presenting arguments and facts in support of the competing views. Since lists are binary and cannot both include the school and not include it at the same time, one point of view inevitably wins and the others lose. People with intermediate views cannot have their opinion represented at all. Such a list therefore is inconsistent with NPOV by its very nature. --BM 14:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and move to List of schools in the United States. This VfD nomination is really a mess. People vote keep for something like List of schools in Singapore and yet this article gets a lot of delete votes. I fail to understand why. Splitting article in parts is not a VfD matter and the article being too big is no reason to delete it entirely. Grue 13:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 68.72.139.143 04:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 68.23.104.148 01:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remark. Several anon votes for retaining the article were ignored as per deletion policy.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 17:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in the United Kingdom

• Another meaningless list of schools. Delete. Radiant! 08:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Too many dead links, quite all the information is now covered by Category:Schools in the United Kingdom as part of my schools mini-project: User:GregRobson/Schools Greg Robson 10:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful. Not as many red links as some "List of" articles. A category does not replace an article. -- RHaworth 11:11, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a useful list too- at least until Greg's list is comprehensive- which I thought was the idea of wikipedia.. Vanky 11:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Fair point, change to keep. Greg Robson 15:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Dead links are one of the main points of having lists. Wincoote 14:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should be a category. Don't use red links to request an article. Carrp | Talk 16:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's what red links are actually for: Wikipedia:Most wanted articles is generated from them. --Phil | Talk 14:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm worried that some of you seem to think that having red links is a necessarily bad thing. It is, in fact, very much the way that articles are meant to be requested. Expediting features list a requests line at the top of RC for 5 pages are swamped by the millions of pages we yet have not. 16:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't that what Wikipedia:Requested articles is for? Radiant! 21:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not the same thing at all. --Phil | Talk 14:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- If I ever needed such a list I know where to look Longhair 01:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list. --Andylkl 14:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Phil | Talk 14:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletioncruft VFD nomination.--Centauri 20:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It admits it's a partial list, but what is the category for inclusion? "Noted" schools? Schools Wikipedians went to? Best A-levels? (Dulwich College should be on the list for all three reasons). Or is it, as implied, just a useful repository of red links? How can it be comprehensive in any case: how many schools are there? Without a criterion, it is of no use. David Brooks 21:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards Delete. I dislike list articles, and think most of them would function better as categories. DaveTheRed 23:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You can't add red links to categories. Neither can you annotate entries. --Phil | Talk 12:17, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 17:18, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of UK Independent Schools

Another meaningless list of schools. Delete. Radiant! 08:54, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. RHaworth 11:13, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Keep Do you know what the word "meaningless" means? Wincoote 14:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. *yawn*. James F. (talk) 15:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - censure nominator - David Gerard 23:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Putting censorship on people who disagree with you goes against the very idea of Wikipedia. Radiant! 10:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, "censure", not "censor". You have made a number of VfD nominations that appear greatly inappropriate. James F. (talk) 10:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I have made a far greater number that are very appropriate. If you read VfD history, you'll notice that I get a number of concurring votes on nearly all of my nominations, and that the majority of them gets deleted almost unanimously. You'll also notice that I listen to reasonable arguments and can be convinced to change my opinion. Radiant! 16:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • There is no excuse for "collateral damage", to use that vile euphamism for carelessness. James F. (talk) 13:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list. --Andylkl 14:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and strongly support comments by David Gerard and James F.. Yet another deletioncruft VFD nomination.--Centauri 20:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete would be better as a category. DaveTheRed 23:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Should be reformed to include the reason why the founder setup the school. User:Sibaz 03:22, 03 March 2005 (GMT)
• Keep Useful Vanky 18:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to say delete actually, not because the information is totally useless, but because Wikipedia is plagued by half-baked lists their authors have no intention of completing. An article that consists solely of a permanently incomplete list is not really encyclopedic in my book. These pages are a relic of the pre-category era. All these schools could be put in a category that would do the same job as this page without having to be a totally exhaustive list - something this page will never be. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS; thus the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 17:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in Japan

Another meaningless list of schools. Delete. Radiant! 08:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This and all lists of schools. Are you trying to get your way by giving us more votes to do than we have time for? Wincoote 14:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course not. Now can we keep this discussion civil, please? Radiant! 16:01, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then may I civilly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and, as per the instructions on the top and bottom of VFD, only make nominations strictly according to those criteria? As ooposed to the ridiculously bogus nominations you appear to be flooding VFD with that aren't made according to those criteria. HTH! Thanks! - David Gerard 23:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Nomination was made because article is deemed unsuitable for WP (deletion criteria #1), on the grounds that 'Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links' (unsuitability criteria #3) and that 'Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of internal links' (sub-criteria #2). Radiant! 10:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Radiant! Is a practitioner of Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion the objective of which is to get legitimate articles deleted as a "sport". Wincoote 15:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • For the humor impaired, the Extreme Deletion page is a work of satire. It says so on the top, too. Please avoid ad hominems in VfD discussions. Radiant! 16:07, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All notable schools in Japan (or any other country) can be included in a category. There's no need to have a massive, unmaintainable article. How would that possibly be useful to a reader? Carrp | Talk 16:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, censure nominator - David Gerard 23:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a helpful comment, especially from an arbitrator. Carrp | Talk 04:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Putting censorship on people who disagree with you goes against the very idea of Wikipedia. Radiant! 10:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only pointless, but without a prayer of being even significantly complete. And how would such a list, even if by some miracle complete, be of the slightest use (actionable) to a reader of an encyclopedia? --Calton 10:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. *yawn*. James F. (talk) 11:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list. --Andylkl 14:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • To whom could it possibly be useful? And for what purpose? --Calton 04:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • To myself and any other persons interested in the reading up of schools of course. --Andylkl 08:33, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Say what? You are -- seriously -- interested in reading up a list of thousands of school names? No, I wanted an actual way this list would be useful. --Calton 01:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 02:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable, useless, inevitably incomplete and inaccurate list. --BM 14:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletioncruft VFD nomination.--Centauri 20:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the article. What is useful about it? Why shouldn't a category be used? How do we make sure false or inaccurate information isn't added when the article becomes huge.Carrp | Talk 20:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Categories are better. Incidentally, the fact that there are so many Delete votes for this article says to me that this is most certainly not Deletioncruft. DaveTheRed 23:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all these school lists. Preisler 04:31, 25 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. —Korath (Talk) 17:27, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of high schools in Japan

Another meaningless list of schools. Delete. Radiant! 08:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should be a category. Carrp | Talk 16:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless list. Megan1967 00:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. *yawn*. James F. (talk) 11:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list. --Andylkl 14:05, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yep. It's useful. Vanky 00:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --BM 14:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletioncruft VFD nomination.--Centauri 20:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a general consensus that high schools in and of themselves are not notable. Why then is a list of high schools useful? DaveTheRed 23:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The idea of 'notability' is a subjective one. I thought Wikipedia was about the pooling of knowledge.. Vanky 23:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. If we discount notability as a criteria, then I could write an article about my cat Fluffy, and it would have to be included. DaveTheRed 00:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That article doesn't discount a list of schools. If your cat educated kids in Japan, it would be fine too! These are permanent public buildings that are the integral to their communities. Vanky 11:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Just because they are integral to their communities does not make it notable on a world-wide level. Libraries are used in education, and are integral to their communities. Do we need an entry for every single library in every small little communitiy? I say no, only the large, significant ones. Same with high schools. DaveTheRed 22:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • What's the cut-off point? Where I come from, 1000 pupils is big. Does that make it significant? Vanky 00:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't use size as a criteria for grade schools. Rather it should have something that distinguishes it from the pack. Like offering a program that few other schools do. Or being the first school to reach some acheivement. Or being the top rated school on some prestigious list. Or it should be famous via the media (i.e. Columbine HS).DaveTheRed 02:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We really need some kind of big vote on the whole school subject. This ongoing discussion creates a lot of animosity and should be resolved.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 17:55, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in New Zealand

Another meaningless list of schools. Delete. Radiant! 08:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep An insult to New Zealand, education, and sincere Wikipedians efforts Wincoote 15:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It would be less insulting to have a massive, almost certainly inaccurate and out-of-date list filled with red links? All notable schools in New Zealand should be in a category. Carrp | Talk 16:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, delete nominator - David Gerard 23:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That comment is completely out of line for an arbitrator. Carrp | Talk 05:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Putting censorship on people who disagree with you goes against the very idea of Wikipedia. Radiant! 10:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Radiant! Is a practioner of Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion the objective of which is to get legitimate articles deleted as a "sport". Wincoote 15:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • In case you hadn't read the notice on the Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion page, it is satire. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he's eeeevil. Radiant! 16:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --BM 00:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. *yawn*. James F. (talk) 11:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list. --Andylkl 14:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Otherwise we would lose knowledge that may be difficult to replace. Vanky 00:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Schools are not intrinsically notable. Lists of non-notable schools are even less notable. RickK 00:34, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletioncruft VFD nomination.--Centauri 20:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Primary and secondary schools are not notable, let alone lists of them. DaveTheRed 23:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all these lists full of unnotable schools. Preisler 04:31, 25 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. —Korath (Talk) 17:29, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools by country

This is even weirder, it's a list of lists of schools. Delete. Radiant! 08:54, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• KeepI'd say it's weird to call this weird. It may not be what you want to read on Wikipedia, but it seems like a good idea to me. Wincoote 14:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Now I know why he does it. Radiant! Is a practitioner of Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion one objective of which is to get legitimate articles deleted as a "sport". Wincoote 15:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another article that should be a category. Carrp | Talk 16:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And some of them aren't even lists! Just got done renaming the Taiwan article because it was a description, not a list. --Woohookitty 18:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --BM 00:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. *yawn*. James F. (talk) 11:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list. --Andylkl 14:05, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vanky 00:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletioncruft VFD nomination.--Centauri 20:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Even if I was to concede that list articles were ok (which I won't), we certainly don't need a list of lists. We have categories for a reason. DaveTheRed 23:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all these lists of unnotable schools. And lists of lists on them too. Preisler 04:33, 25 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 - RedWordSmith 06:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shunde

Nonsense, speedy delete? Ganymead 04:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Contents is "shunde". Well it might have been someone starting an article, they only had a couple of minutes. Anyway you can use a {{del}} tag on them, don't need to Vfd. Kappa 04:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, empty article. Megan1967 05:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, empty article. Jonathunder 05:53, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 16:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dimitri

Only three hits on Google, in Dutch (I assume). Not noteworthy. Delete.-gadfium 04:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Crap. Can't figure out why this article is at "Dimitri" though. -R. fiend 06:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I originally marked this speedy on patent nonsense grounds but Gadfium made this VfD instead. In any case, delete. --JuntungWu 08:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a hoax. jni 09:42, 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) 11:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Create Your Own Art School Success

Pure book blurb (self?) promotion. Alai 04:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously promotional. Tverbeek 16:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and see article on the author below. DJ Clayworth 04:29, 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 DELETE. jni 16:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Varig destinations

Article is nothing more than a copy of information already in Varig. Foobaz·✐ 05:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, duplicate article, a list of airline destinations. Megan1967 10:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, exact copy of information already in Varig Ana Jessica 16:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly a duplicate Fernando Rizo 19 Feb
• Delete, a duplicate mat334 | talk 00:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. I suggest that the vfd footer be removed in order to allow the redirect to work properly. I strongly recomend redirect to Varig#Destinations rather than delete in order to keep the Airline destinations category intact. 129.177.61.124 11:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect sounds reasonable to me. Foobaz·✐ 07:27, 23 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 15:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Robert

This page was created by 24.5.82.8 after the article he/she created, Wily Python, was marked as Vfd. In his comments on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wily Python, he wikified links to this Dr. Robert article. On its own, the article reads as not notable. Zzyzx11 05:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is the complete content of the article: "Dr. Robert provided the copy of Thomas Hardy's " Far from the Madding Crowd" and "The Return of the Native. Also the copy for John Reed's " Ten Days That Shook The World" and Jack London's "Call of the Wild"". "provided the copy"? To whom? When? For what purpose? Entailing what, precisely? Dr. Robert is an enigmatic figure of mystery, it seems. Unfortunately, you don't get into Wikipedia just for being an enigmatic figure of mystery -- or for being mentioned in one line of a movie. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone writes an article on the Beatles song. -R. fiend 06:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Or on the 80's singer/songwriter, for whom we already have a redlink. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Also, the moment I started reading this VFD the Beatles song started playing on TV. Weird. [maestro] 07:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable and probably speediable as patent nonsense. Was Dr Robert swallowed by a wily python?Capitalistroadster 09:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is meaningless. RickK 00:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY. jni 15:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polinym

Neologism. Not in OED. Same guy who created the -icle neologisms. Rhobite 05:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- The Google hits I got use the word "Polinym" as another name for "pseudonym". There are also web sites that refer to a publishing company call Polinym Press. So far I have not seen a notable reference to what is on the Polinym article. Zzyzx11 06:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pseudonym. Megan1967 10:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as created by a known vandal, who keeps pumping neologisms from 69.2xx.xxx.xxx domain. Mikkalai 04:48, 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 DELETE. jni 15:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beast metal, Ribo/Flaven

Band vanity. Rhobite 05:48, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Currently it is all self-promotion but no notable substance. Zzyzx11 06:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting WikiProject Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 07:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 10:27, 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 redirect. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] À la folie... pas du tout

I'm not sure what this is but its not encyclopedic. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is an entry for French film He Loves Me...He Loves Me Not that was made in 2002. This should be Moved to an entry under the English title and expanded. IMDB entry. Ganymead 07:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't speak French. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move to He Loves Me...He Loves Me Not Glaurung 07:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect. Megan1967 10:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move to He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not. Movie starred Audrey Tautou and is quite notable. Mike H 07:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- Longhair 07:59, 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. jni 15:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John D Buchanan

Self promotion page with links to essays written by Mr. Buchanan. Mostly advertising for his book.Ganymead 07:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just self-promotion. Nothing notable. Zzyzx11 08:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. Megan1967 10:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 15:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously promotional. See also: Create Your Own Art School Success. Tverbeek 16:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disabled the external links so that Mr Buchanan doesn't get any Google rank increase from this little exercise in vanity. Delete. DJ Clayworth 04:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, apparently a serial self-promoter. Alai 05:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 08:45, 25 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) 12:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine Currency Board

This came up for deletion about 5 weeks ago (the discussion is on the talk page). It was deemed original research but several people said give it time and see if the original writer (FGVozza) integrates it into the Economy of Argentina article or somewhere else. Well it hasn't been touched. I gave it a better title, but other than that, it's the same page that came up to a vote a month ago. I say it's time to delete it. it's still original research. If someone can integrate it somewhere else, now's the time. Otherwise, I think it's time to delete this one. --Woohookitty 07:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should have been moved to user space of User:FGVozza five weeks ago pending the rewrite. -- Curps 08:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move to User:FGVozza, no redirect. Megan1967 10:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If that's the consensus, I can do the moving. --Woohookitty 18:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I really do not understand what the fuss is about here. The article as written is factual, extremely interesting, and covers the last fifteen years of Argentine currency and monetary policy most effectively. In addition, it is presented in a very NPOV fashion, and both the pros and cons of the various stages of policy implementation are discussed. It has clearly been written after careful review of published information (see the bibliography), and I fail to see how one could write an intelligent article on this subject in any other way. You are saying it is "original research". I disagree. The "original research" articles that I see coming up on VfD are all pursuing a new line of thought, a theory, or a favorite hobby-horse, and are appropriately deleted as unencyclopedic. This is entirely different. I also find the "style editing" tag attached to the article inappropriate. Yes, the format could be improved, with better sub-heads, links to other articles and so on, but I personally find the style very apt, and it covers the subject better than the Economy of Argentina article does. I would not be surprised to read such an article in a published encyclopedia. As to the naming of the piece, Argentine Currency Board is perhaps not bad. I suppose it should be called Argentine exchange rate management 1991-2002, but Argentine Convertibility Plan might do the trick. KEEP HowardB 19:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Well it does qualify as original research. If you go to Wikipedia:No_original_research, it clearly states that Wikipedia houses articles, not essays. Essays are considered original research. And this is an essay. It does cite sources, but it is not in the accepted Wikipedia format. The headers are essay headers, not headers in the headline style that Wikipedia uses. And the user has been given ample opportunity to change the article so it fits the Wikipedia format. Whether or not it is well written is not really the point. And it creates redundancy, especially since nothing even links to this page, so it's essentially an orphan. Not even the Economy of Argentina page links to this. --Woohookitty 22:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with your assessment of original research, and so does Wikipedia:No_original_research. You have chosen to take one single word -- "essay" -- from that page. The rest of it would clearly define this article as not original research. Look at the checklist under the heading "What is research and what is not" -- not one single point there would categorise it as original research. Not one. Would you rather an article cut and paste from a few web sites and change a few words to avoid copyvios? The subject of this article is complex -- there is no right and wrong, so the only way to write it is to visit source material and construct a balanced summary of it. That is NOT original research. The actual writing of it, and the structure, wikification, etc. clearly needs attention, but those are not reasons to delete it. I have undertaken a significant rewrite, improved the layout, added links, and so on. I would ask you all to please take a thorough look, revisit Wikipedia:No_original_research and reassess your votes. If there is a consensus to keep this, I will undertake, also, to establish category links and links from other wikipedia articles. Upon further reflection, I agree that the Argentine Currency Board title is best. HowardB 13:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not "original research" as per that definition at all. Bad format of good content is not a reason to delete in itself - David Gerard 13:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, properly referenced. Format could do with some cleanup - David Gerard 13:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with HowardB and David Gerard that the article is not original reserach. It currently has more the style of an essay than of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, but that can be rectified quite easily by editing. The Wikipedia stricture against original research is to prevent people from introducing original ideas, discoveries, etc into the Wikipedia that have not been vetted by peer review and/or public discussion. Encyclopedias are compilations of received knowledge, not journals for the announcement of new discoveries and original findings. But, of course, the injunction against original research is not a prohibition of doing any research; indeed, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries and syntheses of published, mainly secondary, sources, and these are presumably produced by research. Indeed, another Wikipedia injunction is to cite your souces, which this article does quite well. All that said, even if the article were entirely original research, that would not be grounds for its deletion. Sometimes cleaning up would reduce an article to a sub-stub, and many VfD voters (including me) vote to delete sub-stubs; but in general VfD votes are not about content but about topics. A topic might be so bound up with its original research content that it should be deleted; but an article that was entirely original research on a valid topic can be rewritten and generally should not be deleted. The topic of this article certainly merits an article in the Wikipedia. --BM 14:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well sourced, informative. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ejrrjs | What? 22:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with BM.-gadfium 22:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jarrod San Angel

Nonnotable, probable vanity. Author should register as a user and copy this information onto his user page. It's entirely appropriate for a user page but not for a namespace article. JamesMLane 08:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, move to userpage. Thue | talk 08:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Megan1967 10:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Or userfy if the author made a user. Inter 12:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above comments. Appropriate for a user page, not a mainspace article. Carrp | Talk 15:31, 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 transwiki. The consensus was to delete but also transwiki. The page is being kept until the transwiki is complete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reacharound

Dicdef. Besides, searching at google I couldn't find anyone actually using the word, so it is probably a neologism too. Thue | talk 08:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I think it should be left alone. If it were written in a profane manner then I would say delete it, but it is written intelligently, though short. If it were expanded upon it would be a valid article. Yalbik | 08:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: which of these votes is the valid one? Capitalistroadster 09:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Dicdef, doesn't google, delete. Radiant! 09:45, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be a real term: I found it used to describe a soccer player [2] when I was googling. Kappa 10:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang neologism. Megan1967 10:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It is a real term, but this is just a dictionary definition (dicdef). Not encyclopedic because you really can't say anymore about it (i.e. no possiblility of being expanded upon). Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (also "Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide") -- Serge Dupouy 11:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It could be expanded to include infamous cases of "reacharound" fouls in sport, I think there was one with Paul Gascoigne that made the news. The sexual technique might be expanded with some recommendations by sex experts, or some quotes about how the performers feel. Also it seems to be used as an analogy, e.g. "that country gave our country the reacharound". Kappa 11:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Someone's been watching the Daily Show -- Jon Stewart did a whole riff on the subject on Wednesday night (i think it was). Or perhaps they saw Full Metal Jacket, with the magificent line, "I'll bet you're the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddam common courtesy to give him a reach-around." Delete, unexpandable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dickdef. -R. fiend 18:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, if you put "reach-around sex" into Google, you do get lots of relevant hits. Having said that, unlike Donkey punch which is currently on VfD, I can't really see any way of expanding this beyond a dicdef. So, unless anyone can make an encyclopedic entry out of it, delete HowardB 19:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary. It is not a neologism. RickK 00:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 04:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mere definition. Rossami (talk) 08:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't delete dictdefs, we move them to wiktionary. RickK 21:09, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary is the proper fate for dictdefs. —Korath (Talk) 17:23, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to Leon Fleischer. This has already been done by Joyous. —Korath (Talk) 17:29, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Fleischer

A misspelling - ought to be Leon Fleisher of course. Duplicated and ought to be removed. Mandel 10:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect it, then. (It seems like a reasonable misspelling, so redirection's probably better than deletion.) Shimeru 10:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Zzyzx11 19:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Academic Challenger 20:33, 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 KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 17:33, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive (band)

This page appears to be merely an attempt at promotion of a current band (musical group). (Has nothing of an encyclopedic nature about the band.) Of what encyclopedic value is this list of albulms? Can't little lists of band members and albulms be easily found on the internet already without turning Wikipedia into a database for such things? (Wikipedia is overloaded as it is.)

This has been a Stub for almost a year.

See also the "disambiguation page" (Is it ambiguous if users are not likly to be searching for a band if they type "archive"?)

-- Serge Dupouy 10:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 00:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and clean up. Google gets 126 thousand hits for archive + "trip-hop", and All Music Guide has an entry for them. DaveTheRed 00:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded it a little bit. Is this sufficient for everyone? DaveTheRed 00:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, should be expanded. --^grm_wnr 09:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, i will expand it some more. They are notable, and, incidentally, are very good. Jdcooper 14:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Article expanded further. So keep, and redirect Archive (Disambiguation) and Archive to Archive (band) Jdcooper 15:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to Dance Dance Revolution. (The merge had already been carried out.)

I count six deletes, a redirect, three merges (including the nominator), and two keeps. There is no consensus for deletion; however, there is a clear consensus that this information should not remain in an independent article. —Korath (Talk) 17:50, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DDR Freak

I'm re-listing this page because it hasn't had any content added since the last time it was on VfD, just formatting and clean-up. The DDR Freak website does not have the potential to become encyclopedic. The site has songlists, stepcharts, and basic information on the game Dance Dance Revolution, but it has no notable history of its own. At best, one could list the different site layouts, major downtimes, and partnership with Red Octane, an online store that advertises on the site. The forums, which are a major portion of the site, are mainly used to discuss information that's already covered in Dance Dance Revolution and the individual game pages. The only thing I can really recall as being memorable is their April Fool's joke, where every member was turned into a moderator. Otherwise, see Internet forums for more info.

I've already added DDR Freak's relevant information to Dance Dance Revolution#Internet Fandom.

To sum it up, DDR Freak is well-known as a portal for DDR information and discussion, but not as a point of interest or discussion itself. --Poiuytman 10:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect Kappa 10:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No change of vote — Keep or Merge and redirect into the main Dance Dance Revolution article. —RaD Man (talk) 11:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT: Poiuytman orginally redirected this page, but was reverted on the grounds that the page survived VfD before. Kappa 11:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyking 14:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. With an Alexa rank of 70,000+, this website isn't notable enough to merit an article in the Wikipedia. --BM 15:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into the Dance Dance Revolution article. Carrp | Talk 15:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, anything worth mentioning about it is already at Dance Dance Revolution. — Ливай | ☺ 17:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's what happens when pages get merged. Kappa 22:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or, if information absolutely must be kept, redirect to Dance Dance Revolution. (Note: If information has been merged, then we need to keep the original article as a redirect.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Disclaimer: I put this on VfD last time.
  It might worth some mention concerning the popularity of DDR (i.e. The DDR phenomenon). However, I think the internet fandom section is not very well written; it does not look encycloprdic.
  A note to Poiuytman: (A follow up to last discussion) I used to be a mod of a DDR board, so I know quite a few thing about the DDR culture, but I currently do not have time to modify that section yet. SYSS Mouse 03:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 17:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I second SYSS Mouse's comments. 131.107.0.101
  • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 17:50, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect. Iff it merits its own article, fork it. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 00:06, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect. I think that the Internet Fandom blurb in DDR is adequate for now. It may be worth exploring writing a full fledged article, but none of us who care (such as SYSS and me) have had the chance to expand it. Since the Internet Fandom section isn't necessarily encyclopedic, I'd recommend improving that section and possibly creating a dedicated article in the future if it's warranted. Full disclosure: As I mentioned in the original VfD, I am an administrator of DDR Freak. And no, I did not submit the original article. I was as surprised as anybody to see it. Ameltzer 21:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 02:53, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lawford premise

Not notable, haven't completed their first album yet according to the article. Thue | talk 21:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. 200+ Google hits[3]. Not sure about this one. --Edcolins 21:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notable - having not completed its first album. Entry looks like an advertisement. Megan1967 22:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity ad. Rock and Roll!!! --Deathphoenix 01:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, 200 Google hits, no mention in AMG, website advertises for a lead singer. JoaoRicardo 07:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note: this VfD subpage was blanked by the article's author, 203.109.253.95 (talk · contributions). I am relisting it here so the discussion can be completed. sjorford →•← 12:35, 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. Joyous 02:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chat on the internet

With its redirect Chat on the Internet and COTI which I put up for SD. An AIM chat room. Google yields many hits on "Chat on the internet" and "COTI" but none as far as I can see concerns this chat room. Not notable. Inter 13:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. HowardB 18:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While it does bring up the question of whether it is ever possible for an individual AIM chat room to deserve an article in its own right, it does not answer this question. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to online chat. -Sean Curtin 17:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:56, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Christopher M. Reyher

Non-notable doctor who died about 70 years ago. Google turns up zero hits for "Dr. Christopher M. Reyher"[4] and only 10 unique hits for a more general search of "Christopher Reyher"[5]. None of those hits appear to be the subject of this article. Delete Carrp | Talk 14:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Methinks it's vanity on behalf of grandpa. HowardB 18:30, 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. jni 15:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Weatherby

Delete this vanity. — Ливай | ☺ 17:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable and vanity. Carrp | Talk 17:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity -- Longhair 18:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Dare I say delete. According to the describtion he's a pretty big guy :) Preisler 20:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:32, 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 delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Roberts

This looks like vanity to me, although a lot of time has gone into it by the look of it. Guy went to college, was in a band... Rje 18:33, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• If one does not live in northern Hampshire or Plymouth, one is unlikely to know of this person. This person is locally well known. Understandably, questions should be raised about this article, yet because of its entertainment value it surely deserves a chance for improvement.
• The above remark by 141.163.84.17
• If he's known only in Plymouth, I don't think he qualifies as notable enough for WikiPedia. Delete. Radiant! 19:34, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 'Not notable'? So much for the 'accumulation of knowledge'... unsigned comment by User:80.235.142.76 (contribs) at 03:46, 20 Feb 2005)
• Delete. Vanity page. — Gwalla | Talk 02:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with 80.235.142.76, but it is a vanity page.Howabout1 03:54, 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 SPEEDY DELETE (CSD rule R2). jni 17:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucilla Borio

This was created by User:Lucilla Borio. As it was clearly autobiographical, I moved it to her empty userpage in the absence of any very obvious notability. Perhaps somebody else could say whether the woman deserves an article after all. In that case, a replacement article could perhaps be rewritten. Otherwise the remaining redirect should be deleted. / u p p l a n d 18:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• We need somebody in the ecovillage community to tell if she's of any notability. --Preisler 20:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete case R2. If she is notable enough to deserve an article, it is important that someone else write it. No autobiographies is a principle worth defending. Rossami (talk) 08:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This belongs on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, not here. — Gwalla | Talk 02:18, 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) 14:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Using mobile phones

Nip this one in the bud. WP is not a user guide. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• 'Delete with hot sauce. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I've left a note with the creator of the article that this is wikibooks material not wikipedia. Maybe redirect to prevent recreation? Pcb21| Pete 19:05, 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 Redirect, Merge. CSTAR 17:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jose Antonio Remon

I created another page José Antonio Remón Cantera, with the subject's full name; it's just a stub, but contains more information than the current page.

• Comment -- 24.151.56.32, this situation may not require a deletion. It may only require a Redirect. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect for details. Zzyzx11 23:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to José Antonio Remón Cantera, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Remarks. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement. It's obvious what needs to be done. I will take th ematerial from Jose Antonio Remon that is not included in José Antonio Remón Cantera and merge it. The only "loss" will be the edit history of Jose Antonio Remon, which consists of three anonymous entries and one logged-in entry.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:01, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. --Rhobite 00:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Neon Genesis Evangelion parodies

Original research, and not good original research. One example: Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi is claimed to parody Evangelion because it 'reenacts the famous "running with toast" scene' from Evangelion episode 26. The only reason the "running with toast" scene appeared in episode 26 of Evangelion is because, like just about everything in the sequence where it appears, it is a cliche. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Far too subjective, especially with something that's had as much influence on anime as Eva; most of these are tributes rather than parodies anyways. -℘yrop (talk) 23:19, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original essay, fancruft. Megan1967 01:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Save, ok, granted that this page may not be considered necessary by some people, but it was not intended to be an essay. I acknowledge that it may have been poorly titled (in fact I realized that myself shortly after creating the article). About lack of good research, given that thorough research on the part of one man would mean examining nearly every anime made in the last decade, which is the whole point of having other people edit and expand what I've started. Also, "the 'running with toast' scene" is the only name I have for that at the present (again, other people can edit this). Now, maybe this is fancruft, and for that I will concede that this should probably be merged with the main Eva page, however, I do believe that some kind of list is needed somewhere (for Eva fans, Literary/Movie/Television critics, and pop-culture students alike) to refer to on matters of parodies and tributes to Evangelion. Sorry, if that was too long, but I did need to explain myself. Sweetfreek 04:28, 24 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. Joyous 03:02, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goddess Rinoa

Vanity article about an administrator of a message board that does not (and should not) have its own article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Seeing as this is an anniversary present for the said person, (whom know's nothing of this as of yet) and that it would probably be temporary, I do not see a reason for it to be taken down (at least not just yet). And just what says and/or qualifies our message board ineligable for an article? The fact that its not the biggest and the best of them all? Please enlighten us on your decision. - Trent Nomagi 2:45 PM 19 Feb 2005

Please read What Wikipedia is not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but as Antaeus points out, Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Note the fundraising banner at the top of the page—there are real dollar costs associated with maintaining Wikipedia, and maintaining fan pages isn't where those dollars are meant to be going. If a sound argument can be made that the message board is encyclopedic, then some of its admins might be mentioned in the message board's article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently the Zelda Infinite Message Board is not considered worthy of an encyclopedia article by (there is none at the moment), so why should an administrator be more important? Also, the "information" given in the article is just chitchat, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- If it is indeed an anniversary present for the said person, that is exactly a reason for the article to be deleted. Aleph4 21:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, and article is nonencyclopedic. Trent, it's not that your message board isn't the largest and best; I'm sure it's a great board. But we try to limit articles to truly encyclopedic material here. Granted, we are able to include far more information than traditional paper encyclopedias, but Wikipedia is not a web directory. A few message boards do have articles here, but it does not appear that Zelda Infinite has so far had the kind of reach or impact that those few have had. Please don't let this discourage you from contributing in other areas. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 23:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 23:57, 24 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 15:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superman powers facts

Incoherent catalog of Superman's powers and weaknesses at different points in the character's evolution (information already covered at Superman) written in first person. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Rhobite 20:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — completely redundant — RJH 20:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quick, Superman! Use your super powers to send this redundant article to The Phantom Zone!. Zzyzx11 00:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 03:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if nothing to merge to the Superman main article. vlad_mv 15:13, 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 DELETE.

[edit] Anuzutica

The article is a prank, created by anonymous AOL user. If there is such thing as an "Anuzutica," it is not central to Ethiopian culture, as the author asserts. Derg and Ethiopia both link to this article, after links added by anonymous AOL users (though with different IPs.) -- Gyrofrog 20:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC). Oh yeah, Delete. -- Gyrofrog 01:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC).

• Delete. Appears to be a prank. Be sure to remove links from Ethiopia and Derg when it goes. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I had already done this, think I should I leave them as they were until the deletion? - Gyrofrog 01:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, no problem there; I just wanted to make sure that we have covered all the bases. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is this topic being deleted? So I sense ribald racism against the colored people of Ethiopia here? It truly saddens my heart that such archaic sentiments should rear their ugly head in an inclusive community like Wikipedia. - Anonymous Black Contributor

• Above post is from 198.81.26.46, who linked to Anuzutica from the Ethiopia article on Feb. 19, and has already been listed at WP:VIP for vandalizing Ethiopia article on Feb. 20. -- Gyrofrog 04:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • My apologies. The edit actually originated from 198.81.26.42, which also happens to be an anonymous AOL address. However, I somehow doubt that I've made a baseless accusation, and suspect that both IPs are the same user (or co-horts). In any case, if I'm not mistaken, anonymous votes here are not counted. -- Gyrofrog 04:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My white brother, let me say this only once. For hundreds of years, the black man's votes didn't count. This is nothing new. Oh no, there is no new thing under the sun, just as Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes when the man was holding him down because he was black. See, he knew that there was nothing new about racism, nothing new about hate - but that didn't stop him from raising his voice and saying that there's a time for the brother man to speak out. There's nothing new about racism, but that didn't stop Malcom X or Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks or Jesse Jackson or Louis Farakon or Al Sharpton. And I'm not about to let it stop me from speaking up for my rights as a person, either. So you can say all you want that votes from the black man don't count. But let me tell you something, brother. Jesus was a black man, and its a black man who'll be your judge at the Judgement Seat. Then we'll see whether or not votes from the black man are counted, then we'll see. In the meanwhile, I'm gonna keep on speaking up when I see articles on my heritage being deleted for no other reason other than their race. I thank you all for reading this and pray that you'll make the right decision and let this article stand. Oh, let it stand, brothers, like Shadrach, Mesech, and Abednigo in the sea of fire - let it stand and be unharmed!

- Anonymous Black User

• Delete. Zero Google hits. Your paragraph above failed to provide any evidence that this is not a prank; most likely it itself is part of the prank. -- Curps 18:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So now my voice is a prank, eh? Well, don't expect me to laugh, brother, no, don't expect me to laugh, because this ain't no "Amos and Andy" show!

- Anonymous Black Contributor

• Delete. Zero hits, unless it is given a believable reference about it. Bogdan | Talk 16:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I may not be black or particularly religious (ok, not at all) but if something is important to a specific group of people, then it should be kept. What if a fan-of-pop-hater-of-everything-else put Metallica, or Slayer on the VfD? We would then tell them that a lot of people like them and thus it is an important article, or would we go through the VfD process?? Should this be any different?Selphie 16:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) *talk*

May I say that I feel where you're at, my FInal Fantasy playing sister. I feel where you're at, and I say Amen! Just this morning, I posted on the community forum, asking my brothers and sisters for help against the waves of racism that appear to be sweeping this site, and the man took my message down. But that didn't keep my message from reaching your ears, sister! That didn't keep my message from reaching your ears! For its not my message that speaks against racism, its the message of Jesus! See, you can hold the black man down now by deleting his messages all you want, but there is one black man's message you can't hold down! Yes, my sister, that black man from the hood of Nazareth spoke mighty words that can never be clicked away by the white man's keyboard. Let me just say, that nobody will be hitting "backspace" at the judgement seat, sister, nobody will be hitting "backspace" and deleting the words of the Book of Life. So that's why I still have hope, that in spite of all of this vile persecution, my article will be lead into the promised land.

- Anonymous Black Contributor

• Delete unless someone can cite sources. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 19:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brother, my souce is first-hand experience living in Ethiopia. Twelve years of my life were spent in this country, and I vouch for this information. If you will not listen to the Ethiopians in regards to their own culture, who will you listen to? You want a white man to act as the authority on the black man's heritage?

- Anonymous Black Contributor

• Delete. The rants by the supporter(s) of this article do not exactly inspire confidence. Whether it be humour, vandalism or political statement, this material has no place in Wikipedia. I have not yet seen any third-party evidence that subject of this article has any basis on reality. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence for existence. Even if it does exist, it must be very obscure not to have a single web reference.-gadfium 21:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The anonymous comments defending this article are originating from IP addresses 198.81.26.42 and 64.12.116.74, both of which are AOL. Both IP addresses are also defending Muddy joy on its VfD page (where he made a similar accusation of racism, only this time claimed to be American Indian (why not claim both, if applicable?)). Note that both articles Anuzutica and Muddy joy were originally created from the same IP address 64.12.116.138, which is also AOL. I strongly suspect all three IP addresses are the same person (or persons, coordinating their efforts). I also believe the same user may have used 198.81.26.15 (added link to Anuzutica from Derg) and 198.81.26.46 (added a link to Anuzutica from Ethiopia, and then vandalized Ethiopia following the link's removal.) -- Gyrofrog 22:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Also suspect this person has used (or was in cahoots with) 198.81.26.73: see here, this is similar to the "proverb" in Anuzutica. Also 198.81.26.11 may be same user, as this edit refers to Muddy joy. -- Gyrofrog 07:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Trolled "Village pump (news)" 15:44, 23 Feb 2005 concerning this VfD, using IP address 198.81.26.103 (AOL again) -- Gyrofrog 21:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely at odds with the documented culture of Ethiopia. Until a few decades ago, it was ruled by an emperor, and a hierarchy of aristocrats; chieftains & tribal membership play a minor if any role in that land. The responsible editor needs to either furnish documented proof of this custom's alleged existence, or knock off the silliness. -- llywrch 23:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and block the anon. RickK 00:37, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: All IPs suspected to be connected w/ user have been reported at WP:VIP. (FWIW...) --Gyrofrog 07:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable and/or hoax. -R. S. Shaw 06:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)\

This is not a hoax. This is my culture.

• Well then why don't you go to the library (you must have one at Concordia, no?) and provide us with some references.

Try: "Jewels of Northern Africa," by J.P. Kiloma;Pages 346-349; 437; Appendix A "Pre-imperial Ethiopic Customs"

Also try: "They Shall Come from the East" by Brenda Holman for a brief mention of Anuzutica in a literary context (note the scene in the novel where the missionaries Miriam and James bicker with an Ethiopian envoy. They talk about "arcane riddles in which you've buried God as though he were a reeking body, to be dug up by your graverobbing sons when they ascend to power." Sounds a bit like the Anuzutica, no?). (preceding comments from AOL address 64.12.116.74 -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Two more books that explicitly mention the Anuzutica:

"When the World Began: Stories Collected from Ethiopia" by Elizabeth Laird

and

"Ethiopia, the Unkown Land: A Cultural and Historical Guide" by Stuart Munro-Hay (preceding comments from AOL address 198.81.26.42 -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC))

• Swallowing the bait here... Zero Google hits on either the Holman or Kiloma titles. Same goes for the authors themselves. Also unable to find books or authors on Amazon.com. But assuming good faith, I searched the databases of several college libraries for this book or its author, starting with Concordia University, Irvine, CA, from where previous anonymous comments found here were made:
  • Search for author "Kiloma" produces zero hits at Concordia - Irvine, Univ. of Texas, Oxford Univ.
  • Search for title "Jewels of Northern Africa" produces zero hits at Concordia - Irvine, Univ. of Texas, Oxford Univ.
  • Search for title "They Shall Come from the East" produces zero hits at Concordia U. - Irvine, Univ. of Texas, Oxford Univ.
  • Search for author ""Holman Brenda"" produces zero hits at libraries of Concordia U. - Irvine, Univ. of Texas, Oxford Univ. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The Laird and Munro-Hay books exist, but at this point I won't check either of them without relevant page numbers.
• Note to admins: This has been on VfD for over a week, would someone please put an end to this? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:43, 27 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 15:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mew and the wave guiding hero

Article about a future Pokemon movie. Could be a hoax or advertising for a website, but even if it isn't, Wikipedia isn't for rumors about future movies, even movies about such important Wikipedian subjects as Pokemon. Delete. --BM 20:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Rhobite 20:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a fortune telling machine. Zzyzx11 00:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Eek! Delete as Poké-cruft and kiddie-wiki. - Lucky 6.9 02:49, 24 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 17:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Law of conservation of information: First law of information Theory

Original research and junk science; see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html - Fredrik | talk 20:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- It currently reads as a technical research paper -- something that Wikipedia is not. Zzyzx11 00:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless better sources provided. Probably personal essay/original research. The apparent sources are very flawed. The first link, which contains a typo, becomes http://members.aol.com/jmtsgibbs/infothry.htm when the typo is corrected. Although the contributor gives this link the title "Quantum Conservation of Information Theory," the actual page is entitled "Quantum Information Theory." Neither it nor any of the six pages it links to mention any "law of conservation of information;" in fact, they do not contain the word "conservation" anywhere. It is disturbing that this link does not actually reference the topic it is said to reference. The second reference is to http://www.oridream.com which does not appear to have any significant English-language content. The article itself refers solely to "information theory," presumably the body of work created by Claude Shannon. Shannon's work contains no such conservation principle. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The most fundamental discoveries in Information Theory were made by Claude Shannon in 1948 and 1949, which say, more or less, that good compression, good error-control coding, and good cryptography are all possible, but that there are limits on their effectiveness. These are sometimes called "Shannon's Theorems" and if anything deserves to be called "First Law of Info Theory," it's the first of these. This is non-mathematical junk. Crunchy Frog 03:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2552irc

Non-notable IRC client. 50-odd Google results. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-19 20:29 Z

• Delete. Another non-notable article that makes me sigh and ask "Who bloody cares?" Zzyzx11 00:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 03:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just remove it, I don't even know who added it (I'm the creator of the IRC client and i don't even see why it should be on here)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael_Harrell

The very definiton of vanity --Preisler 21:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I concur. Inter 21:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, "extraordinarily handsome" is as vain as you can get. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-19 21:52 Z
• Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another vanity-filled article that makes me sigh and ask "Who bloody cares?" Zzyzx11 00:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:47, 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 KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 17:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Law review

Dicdef. Either needs to be deleted or moved to Wiktionary. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to be an expandable topic (compare newspaper). Keep and cleanup. Meelar (talk) 21:51, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and definitely expand. Megan1967 01:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've made it into a lovely encyclopedic piece. (pats self on back). Still needs further expansion, tho. Newbie BD2412.
• Keep expanded version. But if this is a purely American phenomenon, it should probably say so already in the first paragraph. (And find a good category for the article.) / u p p l a n d 07:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good expansion. Rossami (talk) 08:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, well now that someone has improved upon it alot, I guess there's no reason to keep the Vfd up. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:20, 23 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:07, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Garland

Article about a non-notable school-girl, written by her best friend. Perhaps can be speedied as it is short and lacks almost all context. Delete --BM 21:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• 07:29, Feb 19, 2005 Academic Challenger deleted Diana Garland (content was: 'Diana Garland (Di) is a tiny freshman at Sandra Day O'Connor High School in Glendale, Arizona. She is a debater, but she has little work ethic. She ...')

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 15:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fisher & Hansen

This seems too suspicious to pass up. I believe it may be vanity because the major editor has a similar name to the title of this 'article'. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. How can it be notable when "Fisher & Hansen was incorporated February 2005" (emphasis added) Zzyzx11 00:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I also noticed that. It's still February right now. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:51, 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 delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abril

Non-notable amateur comic. Delete. --BM 21:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. By themselves, works by amateur comic-book artists do not seem notable. It needs more notable evidence.
  • Unsigned by Zzyzx11.
• Delete, non-notable, likely vanity. Articl does not establish notability, and indeed describes itself as "non-profitable" by an "amateur". —Korath (Talk) 17:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 16:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St Dominic Dragons

6th best calothic (sic) school basketball team in Western New York. Not notable Preisler 21:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "They were awarded the rank of 6th best calothic school basketball team in Western New York" is not notable. Zzyzx11 00:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible team vanity. Megan1967 01:53, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Anyone who wants to merge it is invited to, but I'm not going to. dbenbenn | talk 03:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two Hit Wonders

Neologism, unencyclopedic. Delete --BM 21:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. If that's the case, then why isn't One hit wonder on Vfd? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Because it isn't a neologism. Average Earthman 01:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I believe that both actually refer to "artists/groups that have had a very small number of succesful hits before disappearing into obscurity". The title we'd use here would be 'one day fly', but I'm not sure if that's international. Hence, merge (otherwise we could also institute three-hit-wonder; and R.E.M. is arguably a 317 Hit Wonder). Radiant! 23:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to One hit wonder. One hit wonder is frequently used in the music industry. I have seen the phrase Two Hit Wonder before. But it probably does not need a separate article. Zzyzx11 00:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into One hit wonder. Not a neologism. --Andylkl 06:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into One hit wonder. May otherwise be recreated. / u p p l a n d 07:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Do not merge—A One hit wonder by definition does not have two hits. Otherwise seems like a harmless article for those interested in such things. DialUp 20:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Several of the listed artists don't actually qualify, BTW. — Gwalla | Talk 02:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Might be a neologism but gets 4,390 hits at Google—at least one in German and one in Norwegian?. I'm not a music aficionado, so don't feel qualified to vote. DialUp 16:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Now I'm pissed at this article. It states that both Incubus and Jimmy Eat World are two-hit-wonders. Wtf? Incubus has had at least 4, 5, if not 6, while JEW has another single out ("Pain") that is just as popular as the previous two. Also note that for Incubus, while "Megalomaniac" may not have gotten much airplay because of its content, it sure got alot of radio play. Delete for treating them like that. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. ComCat 08:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - otherwise also start Three Hit Wonders, Four Hit Wonders etc... JeremyA 05:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 16:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GreaterSTUFF

Non-notable. Non-encyclopedic. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• And pretty blatantly an advertisement as well. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GreaterSTUFF is another online organisation or company using Wikipedia as advertising space to self-promote themselves. Zzyzx11 00:19, 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 delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gogodidi

Neologism, absurd article. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-19 21:49 Z

• Delete Pure Neologism. Zzyzx11 00:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. Radiant! 14:17, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 16:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boarders

Unencyclopedic. There may be some information hiding in there, but it's unclear what it might be. Sounds like dictdef, if anything. Rl 22:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It requires notable evidence. Zzyzx11 00:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, circular dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:13, 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. jni 15:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to tell if your child is a hacker

All I can say is, wtf? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a repost of an Adequacy troll. Speedy deleting. silsor 22:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

What is the name of this article? Vellocet Malchickawick 27:36, Feb 19, 2005 (EST)

If you're smart enough to copy and paste the article into Wikipedia I'm sure you can figure it out. Please check the giant copyright warnings at the bottom of every edit page. silsor 22:37, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. Although I do, I'm just wondering: since this is an open letter then why does it violate copyright laws? (sorry to be a dumbass) Vellocet Malchickawick 27:39, Feb 19, 2005 (EST)

It's not an open letter. silsor 22:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Silsor. Adequacy articles aren't encyclopedia articles. I guess a um... YHBT is in order. Rhobite 23:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 16:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Wynn

Not-encyclopaedic. --Neigel von Teighen 22:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of real notable information. It does not even currently cite the URLs for the "Official" webpage and a group in yahoo. Zzyzx11 00:14, 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 REDIRECT to user interface. —Korath (Talk) 18:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Web user interface

This article is quite poorly written and I think anything on this article that is relevant is already in user interface. -- Hedley 22:51, 19 February 2005

• Delete or wikify, I agree, if something says its like something yet something else, then we have a problem. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to user interface. There is such a term as Web user interface. But most of the relevant information can be put into the user interface article. Zzyzx11 00:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This article hasn't expanded at all in the fortnight since I (probably optimistically) marked it as a sub-stub. I'm inclined to go with Zzyzx11. Redirect. Uncle G 01:10, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Keep stub and request expansion. Web user interfaces are a new generation of UI on par with addressable text user interfaces and graphical user interfaces. Gazpacho 13:48, 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 DELETE. jni 15:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Light in the loafers

Dicdef of slang phrase. Probably should be transwikied. I don't see any likelihood for expansion beyond definition. HyperZonk^talk 22:56, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, inappropriate, not encyclopedic. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 00:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definition, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:19, 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 DELETE. jni 15:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lag screw

Sounds like instructions rather than an encyclopedic article. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "how to" book. Zzyzx11 00:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even enough here for a transwikibooks. —Korath (Talk) 02:13, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this but we should welcome a replacement article on lag screws generally. Rossami (talk) 08:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice against a real article on the subject. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:29, 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 KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 17:40, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barricade

Dictionary definition Preisler 23:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It can be expanded to describe various kinds of barricades. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-19 23:24 Z
• Keep and expand. It needs descriptions of the various kinds, and how they have been used throughout history. Zzyzx11 00:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and the bar of this name that was partly owned by Phil Ochs. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Preisler - Transwiki to wiktionary. Radiant! 09:07, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Yes, barricades are multifaceted, but in my opinion it's still a dicdef. HyperZonk^talk 02:38, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with Zzyzx11. Needs a lot of expansion, though. Barricades have a long and important history, which could be (and should be) incorporated into the article. Grutness|^hello? 04:36, 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) 16:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Mora

Reads like vanity. Even if not, notability not established. --BM 00:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sigh. It is another vanity-filled, non-notable article marked as Vfd. Zzyzx11 08:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - standard vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:29, 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 KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 17:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Kurdistan

It is not a country how can it be a national flag? Also officialy there is no such thing as a Kurdistan. Kurds themselves will beg to differ with the validity of the status of Kurdistan itself. Hence its fictional or opinion oriented that Factual (note: nominated by User:Coolcat)

• Keep. The Kurdish nationalist movement is notable, and so is its flag. Szyslak 01:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely important and notable. Strong keep and expand.--Centauri 03:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• By that logic we wouldn't have an article on the flag of Chechnya or Taiwan either. Strong keep Preisler 05:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly rename to more NPOV Kurdish flag. If any other Kurdish flags are in widespread use they could also be mentioned here. -- Curps 05:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Invalid basis for VfD nomination. --Andylkl 06:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be a politically motivated nomination. Wincoote 14:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Politically motivated nomination. Nightstallion 15:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Symbols of major nationalist movements/organisations are notable. As for non-countries having flag articles - we've even got an article on the Flag of Devon... Average Earthman 19:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possible rename, bogus nomination in any case - David Gerard 00:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect to Kurdistan. RJFJR 00:33, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- The Kurdistan Regional Government uses it. jdb ❋ (talk) 03:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Del There is no country or state that uses the flag. Kurdistan Regional Government is at best a political party. According to the Kurdistan article the region in question refers to a larger region well beyond the borders of the Kurdistan Regional Government. According to the UN and all UN recognised countries (198 nations I believe) including island countries Kurdistan is not a country. According to Iraqi constitution it is not a state either. It can be kept as a political party at best for that reason. Taiwan is a country according to the UN. China does not recognise them as a country I believe. Chechnya is a Russian state. Texas has a flag. "The Kurdish nationalist movement is notable" is a contradictary statement. If nation does not exist how can there be a nationalist movement, officaly speaking... --Cool Cat| My Talk 14:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cool Cat, see the definition of Nation. Whether something is actually a recognized political entity or not is not always related to its relevance. Only 1 nation recognized the Confederacy, and out of convienience.-LtNOWIS 04:31, 23 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 15:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United Statish English

• Delete. This is a Wikipedia neologism. Georgia guy 01:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically a duplicate of American English. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 01:58 Z
• Delete. He even copied the discussion page, impressive copy paste job.. Preisler 02:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • And silly me, after seeing the talk page I read it and responded to one of the comments. D'oh! Moving it to Talk:American English now... — Ливай | ☺ 07:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "United Statish English" gets no Google hits. Since this is a word-for-word copy of American English, no merge or redirect is necessary. Szyslak 02:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete' Yuckfoo 04:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless fork. Rhobite 04:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate information. — Ливай | ☺ 07:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First, it is mostly a duplicate article. Second, he does not cite a reference for the following statement: "It is commonly called American English, but United Statish English is a more appropriate term to avoid offending the Canadians." That is news to me... Zzyzx11 09:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is alluding to the objection some have over "American" referring solely to the United States and not to the Americas as a whole. But there are no commonly accepted substitutes; United Statish just sounds silly, and other terms like USian and Yankee are questionable in an encyclopedia. Best just to stick with "American", which refers to just the U.S. for the vast majority of speakers of all varieties of English. — Ливай | ☺ 10:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was only referring to the words "United Statish" which do sound silly. I just happened to quote the entire sentence. I do know that some people do object to have "America" refer solely to the USA. Zzyzx11 20:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all useless forks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete idiocy. Neutrality^talk 07:38, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. ComCat 08:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, basically for all the reasons given above. Grstain 16:36, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as amply testified above. --Angr 20:26, 25 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. --Rhobite 00:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pet raccoon

I've merged the useful bits to racoon in a section on raccoons as pets, this page in unencyclopedic--nixie 04:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to raccoon. RickK 05:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for only one very specific reason. Raccoons are not the easiest of animals to have as pets. We already have an article for pet skunk for pretty much the same reason. That said, I agree the current article is a mess, with [[Image]] tags pointing to external JPG files. I would like to give the author some time to upload the images and clean up the article. -- Brhaspati 05:56, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Merge with Raccoon. Radiant! 09:07, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, look at what the highly popular Featured Article pet skunk became. Dan100 12:51, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and give it a chance for cleanup. The consensus at Talk:Raccoon (two people) was for a separate article for Pet raccoon. Perhaps should have been discussed there before being listed here as vfd. DialUp 20:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You do notice that nixie says that he/she has already merged the pet raccoon information into the raccoon article? So now we have two articles with the same information. If we keep this article, we will need to undo nixie's edits. RickK 21:11, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I saw that, and also that nixie had delinked Pet raccoon from Raccoon. No reason given on the talk page and no attempt to seek a consenus. Not required I know, but it would have been the polite way to go. Nixie's addition was nicely written by the way. DialUp 21:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect until such time as someone decides to write a real article on the subject. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Leave merged in raccoon until such time as it's large enough to break out on its own. —Korath (Talk) 18:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

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