Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 23

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 18:55, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan griffiths

Not notable. Thue | talk 23:50, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Foobaz·✐ 23:54, 22 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. --Rhobite 19:05, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Brink of Reality

Vanity article on a non-notable web bulletin board. Foobaz·✐ 01:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, vanity, currently deadend page. Zzyzx11 03:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its not deadend, and whether or not its non notable is your oppinion. The page contains a lot of site history, and is hardly an advertisement.Rangeley 11:33, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, but it still is non-notable. Zzyzx11 22:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable message board --nixie 05:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. 550 members, one active in the past hour is better than the last forum someone insisted was worth an encyclopedia entry, but nowhere near the 50,000, 250 active I'd consider the minimum. --Carnildo 08:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Carnildo. Delete. (notability may be POV but we have consensual guidelines for it, too). Radiant! 08:50, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable even as web forums go. According to the article they only got their own domain a month ago(!!) Agree with Carnildo that 50,000 members, 250 active is a pretty good minimum benchmark for forum notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, It's all been said. Inter 14:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 500 (or even 600 or 700) members does not make a notable message board. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Paraphelion 01:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rangeley Note: For those who think 50,000 members is the benchmark, You will be hard pressed to find a forum over that. I can think of one, Gaia. [1] Here is one with 8000 members, is that too low too? Why arent you going after all the forums with less then 50,000 members, or is this merely a double standard. And to those who say there is only one active user, that is because this is an American Board, and it was in the middle of the night when you said that... And while the main reason appears to be notability, I dont think this should be enough. The article goes pretty in depth. If this were an article with one paragraph, I would definately see your point, a non notable forum with a silly article. But this does have a lot of information in it, it wasnt thrown together in a few minutes, its taken quite a few days to get where it is.

• (Note: the above by Rangely, the author of the article being VfDed.) Nonsense, there are numerous online communities over the 50,000 mark. Slashdot, DeviantART, Kuro5hin, ChristianForums, Hardware.fr, Anandtech, and many many more. As for why we aren't "going after" other non-notable forum artcles, we are. It just takes time. The vast majority of online message-board articles that come up for VfD get deleted for this very same reason. In fact, I can't remember the last time that one was nominated and ended up being kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• My benchmark comes from OCForums, a fairly active overclocking community, where the forum is only loosely attached to any non-forum websites. When I posted my last comment, it had 277 active users in the last however many minutes it counts, at 4AM Eastern (US) time. --Carnildo 00:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Rangeley note: Che-lives has been up since August 31st, quite a lot of time and its still there. While the Brink of Reality isnt as active as some other forums, Is that reason to take a relatively in depth article down? I would think that the top way of judging these types of things is whether the article has a point or not. I could very well be wrong. The Che-Lives article is quite informative and I learned a lot about whats going on there from reading it, and I am not even a member there. I would want to judge that article by its content, not the 'active users' count. I would not mind if this was attempted to be deleted for its content, that I can fix and improve upon, but as is there is literally nothing I can do really. I dont really see this as fair, it should be the articles content not the active users. If there is an article about a small organisation with 100 people in it, is that reason to delete it even if the article is informative and you learn a lot from it? Basically what I am getting at is, if an article has content and informs, that should mean something, and in this case I feel that is being ignored, as noone has yet presented a reason for deletion as being the content. But if the content needs improving, by all means say so and I will get on it!
  • Ok, you bring up some very good points, and I'll try to address them. Point 1: For the most part, very small organisations do not generally deserve articles. There's no official WP-approved number of members an org must have for an article, but usually an article about a 100-member group would really only be of interest to people already within that group. There are exceptions, as always, but that's how it usually goes. Point 2: I wish I could say that the content of this article is blameless in its VfDing. It really focuses far too much on the internal politics of the forum, something that, again, only members of the board would care about. For comparison's sake, let's look at the article for an indisputably notable organisation: the Salvation Army. It's a very good article. Notice that it covers basic history, mission, statistics, and activities of the org. It doesn't get into the internal politics ("X was fired by Y", "X was elected over Y,Z, and N") that those not involved with the org wouldn't care about. Some good questions to ask yourself when deciding what to include are: "Will anyone not inside this group have reason to know or care about this?" "Will anyone need this information in 50 or 100 years?" "How does this information relate to other information? Does it help explain anything?" In my opinion, the first two paragraphs are fine, but the rest is only of interest to those involved in it (who, as a result, probably know it all already). That part should be scrapped or condensed into a sentence or two. If you need more help or advice, just let me know. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • (Rangeley)Alright, that type of advice is something I can follow up on. Edit: I have removed the questioned paragraph, and replaced with a few sentences in the Government and President sections. I have also added a statistics section.
      • That is indeed a vast improvement over the way the article was. By the way, I registered for a Brink of Reality account today as Starblind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:27, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the fact that you continue to improve the article. However, for comparison, the game design forum I follow has 2470 members and 103662 posts. What I'm getting at is that, while your article is of decent quality, its subject is not encyclopedic. As an extreme example, I could write a lengthy informative article about my cat, but that doesn't make it worthy of encyclopedia inclusion. Poor articles on good subjects are tagged for improving, and kept. Consequently, good articles on poor subjects can be tagged for deletion. Radiant! 09:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• (Rangeley) Alright, lets look at the rules and guidelines for deletion deletion policyI dont see anything about a cut off point for forums, I do see things against Advertisements and Vanity articles. A vanity article would be like something on you, your cat, dog, family, your freind, that type of thing. An Advertisement would be 'Go to this site (link)' As we have clarified this article is not this, and I beleive the consensus is its a pretty good article instead, where is the base for deletion? I see many rules that say deletion is alright if the content is poor, but none in this case.
  • You're right, you'll never see a cut off point for groups in official WP policy. This is because WP generally prefers to take things on a case-by-case basis, like you see here on this VfD. Under this system, each member votes using their own criteria (or perhaps no criteria at all). It works much better than simply "All groups bigger than X need articles" or "all groups bigger than Y need articles". Some WP members believe that anything that can be verified can be included, while others prefer relatively high imclusion criteria. The ability to vote based on our own beliefs rather than a set-in-stone this-is-how-it-is set of rules, as well as the open incouragement of dialogue and discussion, keep the system generally balances and reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:27, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• (Rangeley) Im not sure it keeps it balanced and reasonable. The majority isnt always right, and sometimes some people judge unfairly. While you say discussion is encouraged, such as what is going on now, I am beginning to see that it has one flaw. Even as I have shown this wasnt a deadend site, wasnt a vanity article, and even made it information useful to others, rather then internal goings-on, it still comes down to what others think. And in this case the criteria is something unfixable. While we have discussed this for a day, the issue has been whittled down, and we have reached a point where regardless of the rules saying this article is good, personal oppinions will take it down. Even though the point of view for deletion has no rules to support it, it will win. As you said earlier, you cant remember the last time one of these was nominated for deletion and got off. I doubt this case will end any differently. I do think Wikipedia should add more guidelines for deletion, because when I made this I did look into them, and stayed in the rules. I wouldnt have bothered to make it if I knew that even if I followed the guidelines, it would get deleted because the deletion policy isnt actually written, but just ends up being any given persons own idea.
  • Sorry, but you are mistaken about the process. The guidelines for inclusion (or exclusion) are intentionally vague, because it would be patently impossible to provide for all occasions. There are a few non-debatable issues (e.g. copyvio), but the others will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. We do not want the 'lawbook for wikipedia' to govern us (apart from the fact that creating it would take too much time). Therefore, a consensual majority will decide the case.
  • As is the case here. You have made your point. We have listened to you. And we disagree. Taking the case to extremes, we obviously want an article on Bill Gates, and we obviously don't want an article on my goldfish. We must draw a line somewhere, and that is called notability. There is too little that distinguishes your forum as being special amongst the thousands of other internet forums. Therefore, the vote to delete stands. Radiant! 22:13, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 19:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minneapolis Snow Exclusion Zone

Zero hits for Minneapolis "Snow Exclusion Zone" on google, google news, and google groups. Orphan. I'm reluctant to try to merge/redir anywhere as having no hits or context links make verification challenging. Un-tagged/un-sourced images don't help, either. Using google news search for Minneapolis latest Snow I was able to find an article[2] that agrees it was the latest snow in a season since 1945, but it doesn't use the term or verify any of the other details. Only one hit for "Snow Exclusion Zone", and it's referring to weather in Glasgow. Niteowlneils 02:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neither the article nor Google establishes notability. --Carnildo 08:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reasons as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, This doesn't belong here. Inter 14:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Term used a lot in amateur weather forums. Geo-Earth.com, weathermatrix.com and a few others. But I agree the article could be improved on.
  • Note: The above was by User:70.92.183.98, and is that anon's first and only comment. --Carnildo 05:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I live in Mpls., and this is total nonsense. This "event" may have happened, but it certainly is not enough to deserve an article. Delete. Sesel 19:39, 28 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. I count 11 delete, 3 keep, 2 redirect. Rhobite 07:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clitoris envy

This seems like nonsense. No clinical or psychological links on Google as far as I could see, just non-serious or joke usages. Dysprosia 05:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Penis envy is bullshit, but at least its encyclopedic bullshit. This is revenge bullshit. I got 1 google hit with "clitoris envy" and the author's name. -R. fiend 05:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment hmmmmm I get 284 Google hits with "Clitoris envy" (mostly that old Michael Jackson joke). Apparently there is a book by M. Shaalan, called Clitoris Envy: A Psychodynamic Construct Instrumental in Female Circumcision published by WHO. I would vote a tentative Keep but with a major rewrite, with that book. Megan1967 05:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The title of that book got me 2 google hits. Getting better... -R. fiend 06:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL. Our medical research library has a copy. Although at this stage it's not looking too good to save this article. Might end up voting for a redirect to Female circumcision. Megan1967 07:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to penis envy, to which this is an obvious response, and put in a blurb about it there. With all due respect to Megan1967, I think that would be a better fit than female circumcision (even tho it is mentioned in the book and in the article), which is a cultural practice as opposed to a psychosexual condition. I have a hard time imagining that anyone unfamiliar with the book would look up this term expecting to find information on female circumcision... then again, I have a hard time imagining that anyone unfamiliar with the book would look up this term. --BD2412 08:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I may be mistaken, but redirecting may imply the term is a legitimate one (some sort of synonym), when in fact it may not be. Dysprosia 13:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur with Dysprosia. Megan1967 22:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to penis envy. --Carnildo 08:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think a redirect would help, not very likely to be searched for (as BD2412 said) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Even if they aren't the same and hence shouldn't be redirected, the term isn't widely used anyhow. Inter 14:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 14:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten to be about the book -Sean Curtin 00:55, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• If redirected to penis envy someone will need to write something in that article addressing this issue. Question: isn't this a term from the Vagina Monologues? If so, that might be a more appropriate redirect. 23skidoo 01:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the term is basically a joke, like that song "Vagina Envy" by Sewer Trout (I think it was Sewer Trout), or at least it's most commonly a joke. Wikipedia does have articles on some jokes, but it's not the sort of thing we want too much of. We're not a joke book. I'm tempted to say this isn;t really worth including, but I suppose there might be a place it could be mentioned. -R. fiend 02:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If the term is indeed fictitious, then delete. 23skidoo 21:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete', not useful as a redirect. DaveTheRed 03:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful as a redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. I can find no evidence that this is used in any serious context. Rossami (talk) 23:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, joke term. —Lowellian (talk) 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • And also, do not redirect. —Lowellian (talk) 02:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Men don't oppress women because we lack a clitoris; men oppress because they write futhermucking nonsense like this. D. Wo. 05:17, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll say that I find the barrage of opposition here a bit surprising, and some entries are simply machist, really. Some have attacked the merit of the analysis it implies. I find the quote from The First Sex by Elizabeth Gould Davis to be interesting to ponder about and possibly in part quite right. ...but even if you feel this is revenge bull****, as a poster politely implied, we can't delete an encyclopedia fot the merit we subjectively give it. I feel the article could be kept. Also, mentions of this outlook could be added to Sexism and Penis envy. I think the idea of historical sexism being in part attribuable to envy and fear is only an application of many theories about discrimination. So, at the least, this would warrant a rename or inclusion and expansion in the sexism article. And if the article were to be moved to sexism, redirects would be essential. --Liberlogos 05:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. <POV> Personally, I don't see why a man wants female genitalia. </POV> -- Riffsyphon1024 05:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Has anyone actually read the article? The question is not whether 'clitoris envy' is real, it is whether this concept has been seriously discussed. Apparently it has. Redirecting to penis envy is just plain silly. This is a brief, informative article which can stand on its own. --Lee Hunter 11:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What R. fiend said. Penis envy is patent nonsense that is encyclopedic for historial reasons only, because it was dreamed up by Freud. "Clitoris envy" and "penis envy" are equally nonexistent, but the latter is notable while the former is not. -- Curps 07:00, 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 DELETE? Anyway, it's now a redirect, and this isn't RFD. dbenbenn | talk 14:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Chernushenko

Looks like vanity to me. A politician who this page seems to indicate has never been close to being elected to anything. Is a businessman and has worked for a few bureaucracies (are all bureaucrats notable now)? Being elected to government on a national level is notable. Just running (especially on as a minor party candidate) is not. No real accomplishments. He has included his travel intinerary though. Fluff. Delete. -R. fiend 06:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, with reservations. Needs expansion. Megan1967 07:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even politicians must meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. This one doesn't. -- Egil 08:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies#People still alive states Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, and no intention to delete them all. IMO this means that while satisfying the criteria justifies a keep vote, not satisfying them proves nothing. No vote at this stage. Andrewa 11:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Egil, Delete. Radiant! 09:45, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable public servant--nixie 10:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Finished a strong fourth". Lots of people run for office merely as a political exercise, with no serious hope of actually winning. That doesn't necessarily make them notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Concur with Andrew. Inter 14:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep - David Gerard 14:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The party is notable, its leader is notable, some of its more outspoken members may be notable. Fourth place in a federal election as the high point of your career...not notable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Deletustovich. Concur with Andrew and Ten. Barno 01:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I've compressed the page to a redirect. Deletion is no longer necessary.

To explain in more detail: This is not the first time that pages of this sort have come up for discussion on vfd. In past discussions, a general consensus emerged around "minor candidate" pages: (i) there is room on Wikipedia to store some information about such figures, (ii) individual bio pages might not be the best way to approach such figures.

In one previous discussion, I suggested that I (or someone else) could create a more centralized database for minor candidates of the same party, storing the basic information for several such figures on a single page. Most seemed to agree that this was a reasonable compromise, in the event that it was necessary. (The threshold for "relevance" is somewhat lower for a general page of this sort than for a bio page; also, some readers opined that having the information in one location would be more convenient.)

"David Chernushenko" is now a redirect to a page on 2004 Green Party candidates. For the time being, his is the only entry -- there are a few more "dubious" bio pages that I plan on adding (and compressing to redirects) in the near future, however.

If anyone disagrees with this decision, please contact me on my talk page. For the time being, however, I suspect the matter may be closed. (Note that I made a similar decision on vfd once before, without any complaints.)

(Btw -- the page in its previous form *was* vanity.) CJCurrie 03:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I'm alright with this compromise; certainly better than a whole article on him. Also currently on VfD is Dan Biocchi, who, amazingly, is surviving VfD, even though his page said less than this one did. Part of the reason might be that he was once apparently an Olympic athlete (a fact that the article does not mention, nor does it even mention what he ran for and when). If he ran the same year I think he could be put on the same minor candidate page. I imagine there are many pages of candidates who ran for some office and lost who could recieve similar treatment. I know of a few anyway. -R. fiend 04:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I hereby amend my earlier list (on Dan Biocchi) of what I consider the main criteria for inclusion of minor party candidates, to add (e) most candidates are included on a single list. I think this is a really good idea, and strikes a good balance between notability concerns and the fact that the information is useful for some purposes. Keep list. (Oh, and I still think Dan Biocchi's Olympic history makes him an individual keep, as long as the article is expanded to include it.) Bearcat 04:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you have some good points. Some related discussion is going on in Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians. Would you consider joining it? Radiant! 09:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• I am still inclined to vote delete. He just does not meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Merger into a list doesn't really solve the underlying problems of articles about such persons. He is so little known that no one will realistically be able to verify the information in the article. A vandal could add, delete or modify the content of the article (whether stand-alone or in a list) and there won't be enough knowledgable reader/editors to catch it. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't believe this is likely, or that it makes a strong case for deletion -- these may not be well-known figures on a national level, but they're still public figures; information added to such pages may be scrutinized, as such. (And questionable edits can always be reverted in the absence of concrete information.) Chernushenko, in particular, is a relatively well-known figure within the City of Ottawa. He may not deserve a separate bio page, but there's surely room on Wikipedia for information on his political history. CJCurrie 06:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Including the redirect. Candidates for election, even to national legislatures, are usually not notable, and this is the only basis for notability that is mentioned. CJCurrie's "compromise" was to create a list article Green Party of Canada candidates, 2004 federal election aiming to have a short bio on each of the Green Party's 308 candidates (almost all of whom list). This list actually only has one bio, for Chernushenko. I think if you create a list that has a potential for 308 entries, you should create it with a significant number of those entries from the outset, rather than relying on eventualism to complete it. Nobody is going to expand this list to any reasonable degree and it is just going to be crud that is eventually going to have to go through VfD itself. --BM 15:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I realize that the discussion time on this article is over, but I should probably explain my motivations on the odd chance that anyone actually looks over this discussion in the future: the page only has one entry because it was presented as a model for future entries, and was meant to solicit discussion. There are numerous other pages that I could compress to redirects as well; in fact, I may do so shortly. (Btw -- for those overseeing the vfd/old page, I do not believe there is any consensus to delete the "David Chernushenko" page *in its current form*.) CJCurrie 23:02, 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 Keep, no consensus to delete. The voting is roughly tied between keep/delete. Throwing out votes simply because of an inclusionist campaign is out of the question. Rhobite 07:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canyon Crest Academy

Non-notable high school. Apparently this one just opened. Szyslak 07:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Gamaliel 07:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Carnildo 08:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School.--Centauri 12:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, schools are not by definition notable, and this one has nothing to set it apart from the thousands of other schools. Radiant! 12:56, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Although the discussion is whether we should keep schools for being notable or not. I may have had conflicting votes in the past about this, as Im sure others have. Inter 14:45, 23 Feb 2005
• Keep. Needs location in article name. "Notability" is not listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy - David Gerard 14:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Necessary to coverage of its local area. (Or could be merged there.) Kappa 16:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cookie cutter school. Barring that, merge/redir. Niteowlneils 17:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and allow for organic growth. Passes the Pokémon Comparative Notability Test. GRider\^talk 17:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. First, that's an argument for consolidation of more Pokemoncruft. Second, I daresay more people have heard of and been affected by Pokemon than Canyon Crest Academy. Their reported pupil:teacher ratio of 34 doesn't suggest a particularly impressive institution, either. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Pupil to teacher ratios are not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And it has also been established that you need not have "heard of" something in order for it to be encyclopedic. GRider\^talk 21:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I saw someone driving 85 mph on Route 128 the other day. Is that an argument that Route 128 should have its speed limit raised to 85 mph? Wikipedia is intrinsically inconsistent. The existence of Pokemon articles that should not be in Wikipedia is not an argument for inclusion of other articles that should not be in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Concur with Dpbsmith. Actually the entire 'Pokemon test' is an argument out of spite, and thus invalid. It actually seems to mean 'there are certain articles on a well-known subject that I find totally ridiculous, i.e. pokemon, and therefore a certain other article should be kept since I don't find it totally ridiculous'. Whether you like Pokemon or not (and frankly, I hate it), it is very very famous and very influential. Radiant! 09:10, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • Delete. Concur with Radiant! and Dpbsmith. vlad_mv 03:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is precedent for deleting non-notable high schools. DaveTheRed 21:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not establish notability. Neither does a glance at the school's website. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Make a mention in San Diego, California and delete - Skysmith 09:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please Yuckfoo 21:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This and all school articles. Wincoote 23:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Preisler 04:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (I'm happy that someone likes the school that much, I really am. But it just isn't worth an encylcopedia article.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 16:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonathunder 21:40, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --BM 15:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not a deletion criteria. The Recycling Troll 18:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-notable topic => not an encyclopedic topic => no potential for the article to become encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Erm? NO! Convoluted chain of dubious logic => misleading statement => WRONG! The Recycling Troll 12:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is probably a significant part of its local community and is certainly significant to its members. Yes, it's a stub that needs expansion but we're not running out of paper... If not that then create a High Schools in San Diego article and merge.LukeSurl 20:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Secondary schools, at least, are notable and relevant to thousands of people in the local area as well as alumni and current students. And I'm not really quite sure what the age of the school has to do with it - surely that would be all the more reason to allow an article to develop? Drw25 19:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. BEEFSTEW score of 3 (A,D,H), and D is stretching it. —Korath (Talk) 04:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Notice to reviewing administrator: There was an attempt to vote stack on this article. See GRider's contributions. Votes beyond this point need to be reviewed carefully and considered carefully. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users must consider all policies and former consensus before commenting for consensus: Please note, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is not the only policy to consider.

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:What's in, what's out

Considerations should also be made to the following as well:

• Wikipedia:Google test
• Wikipedia:Importance

Users should remember that the Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but expand.--BaronLarf 19:20, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 20:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, high schools and beyond are inherently encyclopedic (and I shan't get started on all the video game nano-cruft that lurks around here). Wyss 21:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notice to AllyUnion: Seeing as I'm not a newcomer, bite me. My vote stands and I thank G-Rider for bringing it to my attention! I almost missed this one. —RaD Man (talk) 03:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I pity the fool who does not keep. RaD Man (talk) 22:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a decent school stub and has potential to become even more encyclopedic. --Andylkl 23:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I feel it is very notable. -CunningLinguist 02:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Google results returned only 236 finds. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 12:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. high schools are notable RustyCale 13:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think schools are inherently notable. Further, "notability" is not listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy (even though I wish it were, and have tried to include it), so isn't grounds for deletion anyway. Dan100 17:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This school is notable, it is a school that is getting much publicity in san diego county for having a revolutionary program in which the school prepares it's students for careeres in the technology and arts field. penguinix 23:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit. —Korath (Talk) 01:52, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP all REAL places -RickK^h^h^h^h^h. Schools are inherantly notable and this belongs on Wiki.  ALKIVAR™ 03:43, 6 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. --Rhobite 19:16, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old Man Bal

Some user on some website, wow!!. Delete. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Less than 130 hits on Google suggests that the article's claim of 'thousands of fans' may fall a little short of reality. --[[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412] 07:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 08:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Andrewa 11:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although this nomination is incorrect. He's not a user on a website, he's a Xenogears character: http://www.escaflowneonline.com/xenogears/characters/balthazar.html Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Non notable. Inter 14:47, 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. dbenbenn | talk 14:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of live appearances by The Smashing Pumpkins

Trivia that doesn't even belong in the The Smashing Pumpkins article. And what does "US Set Rec" mean? RickK 07:31, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, pointless, incomplete list. Megan1967 08:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a straight copy-and-paste from [3] (that's the Google cache, the site seems to be down atm). "Set" and "Rec" are links in the original, and "US" is something called "United States". sjorford →•← 10:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interested to see whether anyone demands we list this as a copyvio. IMO there's no need for this unless this vote fails to get consensus to delete, in that eventuality we must. But it does mean we have an unflagged copyvio in the meantime. Andrewa 11:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless somebody adds complete reviews and setlists for each show... ow! I was just kidding! quit throwing things at me! ow! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, *Throws things at Andrew*. Inter 14:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not like the Smashing Pumpkins are Ashlee Simpson or anything. Of course, if they were, each concert would have it's own article. -R. fiend 19:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I think that you mean each individual number in each concert. I'd vote Merge if this weren't a copyright violation (and if it were deemed really worth having in The Smashing Pumpkins). Delete. Uncle G 00:39, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 14:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usa shaolin temple

Article does not establish notability. No more notable than any run-of-the-mill church or synagogue. RickK 07:50, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not establish notability or location, possible promo. Megan1967 08:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable martial arts dojo. jni 08:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is not established, although I found the website impressive. Agree this is a dojo rather than a temple; This distinction is often confusing both to people with English as a second language and to native speakers who have no experience of martial arts. Andrewa 11:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dojos do not generally need articles unless special or notable in some way Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Shaolin which is eminently notable. JuntungWu 14:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, It doesn't appear to me to be a term many would do a search on, but a redirect can't hurt I suppose. Inter 14:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as Shaolin Temple, New York City and add the {{stub}} tag. — Instantnood 08:46 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 MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 14:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Direct injection vs indirect injection

The content is all right, but is not suitable as an article by itself. Instead, it should be merged with Diesel engine, where it can be a sub-chapter. The article can then be deleted, there is no need for a redirect. -- Egil 08:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Fuel injection, under the existing Diesel subheading. Megan1967 08:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Retaining the text by merging while simply deleting the article (and therefore its history) is not an option because of the way we implement the GFDL. No vote as yet. Andrewa 10:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In furtherance of Andrewa's point: Please read WP:GVFD#Incompatible_votes and then WP:GVFD#Nomination. Uncle G 19:41, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Good article, not-so-good title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, Inter 15:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Megan1967 and Starblind. Uncle G 19:41, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• Merge until large enough to justify it's own article. Duk 00:04, 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Veltheim

Just looks like some persons CV, delete --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, with reservations. Needs cleanup and expansion. Around 1000 Google hits. Megan1967 08:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Notability not established, and the college he founded gets less than 200 googles. Delete. Radiant! 09:47, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• There is a BodyTalk article, I think some more info about its creator could be included there merge and redirect, however neither seem to be in the mainstream of alternative medicine in Australia.--nixie 10:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable "alternative" medicine practitioner. We wouldn't want articles on all the MDs in the world, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't see anything particularly notable here. -R. fiend 20:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 13:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Foobaz·✐ 08:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity alert, anytime you see the words "very successful". DELETE. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:26, 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 MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 15:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carrie Underwood

American Idol contestants are not notable unless they win or, like Clay Aiken, become big stars. RickK 08:29, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go that far... The 12 finalists do become at least minor celebrities. For this one, I'd say merge and redirect with American Idol#Season four for the time-being. She's undoubtedly one of the best on the show and is bound to go far, so at some point she'll deserve an article to herself. Postdlf 08:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• American Idol contestants do merit inclusion if they become an irritating, overplayed, Warholian cultural phenomenon like William Hung. But Carrie Underwood doesn't fulfill any of those criteria, so delete merge and redirect this one. Szyslak 08:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote; don't know why I didn't think of that at first. Szyslak 10:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with reservations. Article needs expansion. I would say Top 12 in this competition would merit some notability. 12,000 Google hits. Megan1967 08:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to American Idol#Season four. Not notable enough to merge. --Carnildo 08:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Carnildo's suggestion--nixie 10:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Celebrity = notability. --Centauri 12:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect seems to be a reasonable compromise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, And redirect. Every inch of my body yearns for this whole Idol abomination to go away but that's beside the point. She may warrant her own article (kicking and screaming as we speak) if she makes it far/wins (I'm almost passing out). Inter 15:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Non-notable right now. Carrp | Talk 15:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as above. Radiant! 09:10, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We should limit articles to the final 12 and bizarre exceptions like William Hung. Gamaliel 01:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into season four as suggested by Carnildo. —RaD Man (talk) 02:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is very interesting, because my dad is rooting for her. Not quite fancruft either. I would say wait for her to advance in the competition because she's very good. Then she would be worthy of an article, especially if she won, however it looks like Anthony Fedorov might beat her to it. Keep and Expand depending on where she stands. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. DAVODD 00:53, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect for now. Keep the options open for possible updating. If she turns into one of the biggest names (she already is showing signs of it), then the article will be necessary.
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 04:51, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• BTW, I had delinked all the American Idol, season four contestant names, but someone added the red links back in; as the results of this appear to be to merge, that article should be taken care of too (again) so we're not doing this mess again with every contestant before any of them have gotten anywhere. Postdlf 22:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As Tuf-Kat says, doesn't meet the recommended music guidelines. Rossami (talk) 04:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Talent contestants, reality show cast members, game show contestants, beauty contest winners, other people who gain their 15 seconds of manufactured pseudo-celebrity very rarely end up having enough enduring notability for an encyclopedia article. And this person is very far from being an exception. --BM 15:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines are by any measure very liberal. A musician who does not meet them and has no other notability clearly doesn't belong. —Korath (Talk) 04:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested by Carnildo Jdcooper 13:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I LOVE her.
  • Anonymous vote by 68.89.164.9 -- Riffsyphon1024 22:38, 6 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preposterous words in the english language

This is rather, uh, preposterous - a "list" of 3 terms under an inherently POV article title -- Ferkelparade π 10:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Well bugger you you ********. I don't care what you think - George W Bush is a pillock!
  • Above comment by User:217.33.207.195, creator of the article.
• Delete, there is no way, we can manage editing this article objectively. Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I doubt that any of these words even exist. --Ryan! | Talk 11:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, Delete. Radiant! 11:26, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - DavidWBrooks 11:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The George W Bush comment ties this in with the past vandalism from this IP address. See WP:VIP#217.33.207.195. This is more of the same. Speedy Delete. Uncle G 12:04, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• GWB being a pillock has nothing to do with how deleteworthy the article is (very). DS 13:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Preposterous article in the english wikipedia. Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologisms not in real use. Bad organizing principle for a list. Not encyclopedic and no potential to become encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic and useless article. Carrp | Talk 15:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, It's all been said. Inter 15:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 217.33.207.195 (talk • contribs) is a serial vandal. Probably worthy of permablock. Delete. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — Brim 18:27, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The only preposterous word in the English language is "preposterous". --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to inherently funny words (on the off chance someone ever looks up this specific term) - but scrap these made-up terms. --[[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412] 22:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is completely useless. I think none of the words even exist. I don't think this is even worth redirecting. 193.167.132.66 12:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subluxation of the article produces osteochondral crepitus of the margo acetabularis. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Serious candidate for BJAODN. vlad_mv 03:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. cesarb 04:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV that doesn't even include preposterous as a preposterous word. Tygar 07:40, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dcfleck
• DeleteLukeSurl 20:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 15:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FirstDefense-ISR

A brand of backup software, of which there are quite a few. Doesn't establish notability; approx 2500 google hits. Radiant! 10:40, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete without verifiability - reads like an ad - David Gerard 14:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this is advertising. -- Demi 12:12, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 15:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flessas

History of a surname and variations thereof. Wikipedia is not a geneaology database. And includes the nice circular reasoning, "members of the family achieved prominence through their contributions to society, such as: those notable personalities whose accomplishments were known". Radiant! 10:50, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. WP is not a genealogical database. -R. fiend 22:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Paraphelion 01:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. --Carnildo 07:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 16:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fournier

Another article on Maltese nobility, from the same website as the others. I believe this shouldn't be voted upon, but follow the same decision as the other articles.

Hence, this page has been created: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Maltese_nobility. Please vote there instead of here, in an attempt to create consensus on this and half a dozen of related articles.

• Keep. Notable.--Centauri 12:12, 23 Feb 2005
• Keep all. Encyclopedic, verifiable. Obscure, but we're not about to run out of paper - David Gerard 21:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all per above. Kappa 22:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• (Author of the article in question) Radiant thats nice you let me know about having items copyrighted but to delete all of my work, well thats beyond the belt, dont you think, or are you rather pricky. If so, then delete all of my contributions and those thereafter which have been amended by others.
  • Ah, but it was done in the exact opposite order. First we came upon one of your articles, and debated whether we should delete it. Then we made a group debate about them. And then we decided to contact you about the copyright issue. Radiant! 12:07, 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 16:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Asia-related topics - A

(also, B-Z) This attempts to be an alphabetical index of a very large partition of all Wikipedia topics. Its usefulness seems obsoleted by the category system ([Category:Asia] and its many subs). Should we keep this? No vote for now. Radiant! 11:16, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, made obsolete by categories -- Ferkelparade π 12:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant with cats. Should be checked for actual redundancy with the cat - David Gerard 14:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just way too broad for a useful list. I can't imagine anyone actually using this: "Ok, I've decided to write my term paper on Asia... but only Asian things that start with the letter C". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Use categories instead. An alphabetical index isn't very useful for this subject. Carrp | Talk 20:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You cannot use categories for the important function "Related changes". AFAIK this has been the major purpose of all List of xyzzy-related topics articles, such as List of mathematical topics, etc.. Mikkalai 20:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above because categories cannot be annotated, or include alternate names. Kappa 22:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicates category, not very useful. Megan1967 00:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Related changes has worked with categories since the last software upgrade. - SimonP 02:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I realize the herculaneity of it, but that would mean a lot of lists would be better off as categories. Radiant! 09:45, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Currently, "Related changes" does not includes articles within subcategories. Until Mediawiki provides a way to see all the related changes among subcategories, these indexes are useful. Kusunose 09:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. I suppose that feature request has been made somewhere? Because as I understand, one of the points of categories is that they're self-updating, whereas lists have to be kept manually. So in principle I would prefer categories. Unless they're buggy in some way. Radiant! 09:45, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Should only be deleted if it could not be of any use to anyone. Deletion on the basis that some people prefer another system is an attack on the flexibility of Wikipedia. Wincoote 23:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, having two separate and divergent indexing systems is Considered Harmful. Radiant! 16:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Paraphelion 02:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, until the bit about related changes for subcategories gets implemented. We have loads of "List of foo related topics", and I don't think nominating one is the right way to address these issues. Isn't there somewhere else more appropriate to discuss it? dbenbenn | talk 16:22, 8 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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 16:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick S. Mates

Stock markted trader from the 1960s who was charged with fraud. Notability not established. Radiant! 11:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep pending evidence of non-notability. I see from google that the investment fund he founded was mentioned in a Time article of 1969: "Mates Investment Fund, which gained 73% last year, has fallen to No. 367". Kappa 11:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • How does one provide "evidence of non-notability"? It's like proving a unicorn doesn't exist. The responsibility for providing evidence should rest on those who assert this person is in fact notable. Gamaliel 19:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You provide evidence of non-notability by looking for evidence of notability, and not finding any. Kappa 21:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable.--Centauri 12:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Additionally, this nomination does not appear to be in accordance with the bit of the VFD instructions that says "Describe why the page should be deleted, in accordance with our deletion policy" - you have not put in a reason listed on Wikipedia:Deletion policy that points out why it should be deleted. As such, this is a bogus nomination - David Gerard 14:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The reasoning stems from the "What wikipedia is not" article. "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" - "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement." Whether being a trader with fraud charges constitutes achievement or notoriety is up to discussion, here in VfD. As a side point, he has 6 google hits total. Radiant! 16:25, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia seems to be conflicted between its goal of becoming the "sum of all human knowledge" and a "real encyclopedia". Which one is the Pinocchio fairy tale? No vote. GRider\^talk 17:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Both are possible. It would only take deletionists a day or two to tag all the content they believe encyclopedia users want access to, and then users could have a choice between the notabilipedia and a full version attempting decent breadth and depth of coverage. Kappa 23:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, but you seem stuck in the 'deletion = evil' state of mind. Since it has long been established that Wikipedia should not contain everything, we all agree that some degree of deletion must be enforced. We merely differ in opinion on where to draw the line. Hence, the VfD process is used. Radiant! 09:24, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • • Deletionism isn't evil, but it is destroying most of wikipedia's potential, which is depressing. Kappa 20:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mates Investment Fund. The fund was a notable, if slightly shady, aspect of business history. Mates himself was not really notable outside of managing the fund. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds pretty non-notable to me. The fund might be notable, but if it is why doesn't it have an article? If someone wants to write one and redirect there that might be the best choice. if not delete. -R. fiend 19:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. I agree with Starblind. The fund is notable, the person is not. Since no article exists for the fund, make a stub for or delete this article.Carrp | Talk 20:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 8 Google hits. Megan1967 00:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia has never claimed to be the sum of all human knowledge. That would be ridiculous. RickK 00:52, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • "It is our goal to put the sum of all human knowledge in the form of an encyclopedia in the hands of every single person on the planet for free" - Jimbo Wales [6] Kappa 05:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What Wikipedia is Not:A General Knowledge Base. Do you really expect that every single tidbit of information in the world should be included in Wikipedia? RickK 06:03, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope Kappa 07:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep May well be notable. Shouldn't be deleted for being incomplete. Wincoote 23:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because I dug up some links [7] [8] which make me think this man or his firm was notable back in the late 60s/early 70s. However, I will note that this was a perfectly legitimate nomination and the arguments put forth by others voting range from ludicrous to completely lacking in evidence. Given the comments, I can only conclude that they are voting based on habit or anti-deletionist fervor, and not on the merits of the actual article since most of them are not actually discussing it. Perhaps tallying admins should toss out such votes as invalid. Gamaliel 00:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a legitimate nomination, but a lazy one. Instead of the nominator googling once, several other people have to do it in order to dig up links. Kappa 09:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not assume good faith? Perhaps the nominator saw the same evidence and came to a different conclusion than you. Just because something gets a couple google hits doesn't automatically make it notable. Gamaliel 17:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • If I don't see any evidence, it's easier to assume the original contribution was in good faith. Kappa 22:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Why is it not easy to assume good faith of the nominator? Gamaliel 00:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • The contribution looks to have been researched, and the nomination doesn't. Kappa 16:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • You should assume good faith, not dole it out based on your impressions. Gamaliel 21:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • As I said, I did assume good faith. Kappa 06:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep69.107.96.61 because I am the author of the original note, and for these reasons: (1) I am a financial contributor to Wikipedia--it's the Golden Rule--they who have the gold, rule; (2) the source for Frederick S. Mates (which admittedly probably should be titled as the Mates Investment Fund) is the classic book "The Go-Go Years : The Drama and Crashing Finale of Wall Street's Bullish 60s" by John Brooks (not to be confused with Brooke Burke, who is impossibly hot); (3) what's the harm? storage is scalable; (4) I notice some of the editors on wikipedia are or could be librarians...but for the rest of us, Wikipedia makes a great vanity publishing site...it's probably not a viable concept however, since statistics tell us that for every population N>=30 people, you will inevitable get somebody who is an 'outlier' oddball who will disagree with everybody else--a weak link in the chain.
  • Since you're not a reigistered user your vote likely will not be counted. And you should be warned that your reasoning isn't going to pull much weight anyway, particularly reason #4. -R. fiend 14:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I kinda like the "golden rule" theory though, maybe financial contributors should be able to vote just as contributing editors can. Kappa 22:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, your reason boils down to, 0.because you say so; 1.because I've donated (then again so have most of us here); 2.because he's in a book; 3.because everything should be kept; and 4.because Wikipedia should be a vanity site. Need I point out that none of these are actually valid and relevant to the discussion at hand? Radiant! 22:22, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I kinda like the "golden rule" theory though, maybe financial contributors should be able to vote just as contributing editors can. Kappa 22:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Still not notable, though Gamaliel made a near save. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Since the suggested redir target Mates Investment Fund doesn't exist, and this article mostly talks about the fund, maybe Move it there as the start of that article? Otherwise Delete. FWIW, I am more alarmed by the suggestion that "I am a financial contributor to Wikipedia" gives anyone extra article contribution privileges. Just because some Wikipedians don't contribute financially because they are unemployed, or whatever, doesn't make their edits less valuable. Niteowlneils 19:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 69.107.96.61 I am alarmed that so-called registered users can delete stuff contributed by financial contributors. Who'se your sugar daddy? Me. Daddy Warbucks. I'm paying for your tuition while you go off and ponder Kant. Yes, it's the same thing. The Chicago school of economics says your worth is directly related to your money. Oprah Winfred is worth more than 50 IBM fellows, cause she gets paid more. That's what society wants. Give it to 'em good and hard, like Mencken says for democracy. Sad but true? Then start your own society; move to Canada. Another pet peeve: I spent a half hour gathering statistics for diamond production by value (rough cut to final gem) and some bozo deletes it from the DeBeers site cause he thought it was extraneous. That's wrong folks. This whole concept of wikipedia is doomed, and the Lexus/Nexus people are laughing all the way to the bank, which confirms BTW the Chicago School analysis. I vote that financial contributors get as many votes as the dollars they contribute, and nothing they post can be deleted unless outvoted, or if it's clearly abuse.
    • This is not the forum to discuss policy changes. Please go to the Village Pump to discuss your ideas for such changes. Gamaliel 00:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, you seem to have confused wikipedia with a capitalist enterprise. Look at the top of your screen and you'll see this is wikipedia.org, not .com. You remind me of those people who give money to the Red Cross and then want to tell them exactly what to spend it on. You're not the first person to want to turn wikipedia into the yellow pages, and you won't be the last, but it still isn't going to happen. I appreciate that you donated $75,000 (I assume you did, you said that you are our sugar dady, not that you are one of many), but that doesn't allow you to vote yourself thousands of votes. Write to your congressman and ask him to introduce a bill that will grant every citizen 1 vote per tax dollar they pay, and use the Chicago School to back up your argument. See where it gets you. And to really endear yourself make sure you mention that 1 Columbian drug lord is better than 1000 Jesuses, 2000 Gandhis, 3000 Buddahs, and a Mother Teresa. That should seal the deal. Let me know when that succeeds and I may reconsider. -R. fiend 17:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • 69.107.96.61 Yellow pages? Nuts. The article is about Frederick Mates, a notable financial person. One vote = one dollar is actually the law in some juridictions vis-a-vis property taxes (a minority trend but Scalia and others are pushing for it on the Supremes). Mother Teresa was a capitalist powerhouse--don't be put off by her modesty--her foundation got paid. Drug Lords are indeed gods in Latin America--see Cidade de Deus/City of God (Brazil 2002). And, BTW, I have contributed US$30 so far, and will continue to do so as long as my stuff does not get deleted too often. Like I said, my DeBeers post got trimmed but I'll consider that a rookie mistake by some stylist. Take Care.
        • While this particular article isn't "Yellow Pages" material, your proposal to allow financial contributors to write whatever they want and block deletion would amount to as much. Walmart could donate a mere $20,000 (pennies to them, and a tax write off) and write articles for every store they have, product on sale this week, etc. As for $1 = 1 vote, I'm not convicned this is the case anywhere, nor do I see how Scalia would have any say about extending such a practice, as it would clearly be a case for the legislative branch, all he could do is rule it constitutional or not if it ever got that far, which I doubt it would. Mother Teresa's foundation may have had alot of money, but that doesn't mean she did; anyone who reads about financial topics should know the difference. -R. fiend 16:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I am not finding any other evidence of notability of this person. Delete the biography (though I could see this as a useful redirect to a more general article where the change in the practice of accounting for letter stocks is discussed). Comment: I do agree with Gamaliel's observation that many of the comments of voters on this page give the impression that they are voting solely on the basis of their philosophical positions and with no regard for the merits of this particular case. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be basically a one-fact article: namely, that he managed an investment fund in the 60's and 70's which was involved in accounting improprieties. There seems to be some precedent that being convicted of white-collar crimes is not inherently notable. For example, we recently deleted Stevin Hoover (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stevin Hoover), even though Hoover was jailed. (The discussion in that case didn't inspire confidence that it was carefully considered, however.) Was Mates convicted? I don't think this hurdles the bar. --BM 16:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notable EdwinHJ | Talk 16:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He was notable, or at least notorious, back in his day, even if he isn't any more. Wikipedia's got articles from the old Encyclopaedia Britannica about people who are no longer notable altough they were at the time. This is just another example of that. Miss Pippa 18:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Despite the destructive argument by 69.107.96.61, who I'm pretty sure has never given a dime I believe this article warrent a keep for the reasons directly above.LukeSurl 20:45, 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. dbenbenn | talk 18:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freeduc-cd

Educational software that googles a lot and may be notable. However, the article is a mere advertisement for a certain 'special' version thereof that you should download. Hence, a deletion and rewrite from scratch may be appropriate. Radiant! 11:27, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this ad. --nixie 01:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. jni 16:36, 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 DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 23:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future Technologies

Company vanity, notability not established. Radiant! 11:33, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Tough one to Google, as it's both a common term and a common company name. Going by the 4,802,966 Alexa rank of their URL though, they don't seem very notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, platform for an external link. —Korath (Talk) 04:58, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-5 06:47 Z

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 BOTH. dbenbenn | talk 15:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Hicks and Sidney Hicks

Two prime examples of vanity articles that do not really establish notability (although both have done this and that during their lifetime, there's nothing really particularly encyclopedia-worthy). Articles created by same user as Richard Jones, which is also currently on Vfd, so the user's other contrinbutions might also be worth a look -- Ferkelparade π 12:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• These article are a weird mix of genealogy and unverifieable trivia delete --nixie 12:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Sydney Hicks appears largely unverifiable. Bruce Hicks has refs. Keep Bruce for now - David Gerard 14:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• About Bruce Hicks: If this wasn't written by a family member I'll eat my hat. I see lots of quite minor accomplishments, while the presentation is just oozing with praise. He's been on some committees, worked behind the scenes in politics, got a few awards (none of which have articles; man, there are alot of awards in the world), and then we have his family background. I'm calling this vanity, or at least family-vanity. And "Bruce Hicks" Canada, got me about 500 google hits, which isn't tons, and not all of them are him. eading the article, you'd think this guy basically saved the world from all that is evil, but I'm pretty confident he didn't. The Sidney Hicks article is much worse. Delete. -R. fiend 19:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is why I hate it when two (or more) related articles are VfDed together. Keep and Cleanup Bruce Hicks. It looks like a lot of his accomplishments are pretty much resume-stuffer material that doesn't really mean a whole lot to most people (Look, ma, I made the Order of St. Stanislas!). But I think that a lot of medium-sized accomplishments can pile up and amount to the same thing as a big accomplishment. The guy does have a charitable org and award named after him, and that fact alone might lead some people to look him up. However, the article does need a fair bit of cleanup, NPOVing and trivia-removal. As for Sidney, I sadly must vote delete as 99% of the article seems to be about her family, not her. In this case, removing the irrelevant info would leave us with a 3 or 4-word stub, and it's better just to wipe the whole slate clean. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:16, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced even Bruce's bigger accomplishments are really worth much, even when added together. The article says his greatest accomplishment is being responsible for proposing that the motto of the Order of Canada is placed on the Canadian Coat of Arms, and a small note on the article on the Coat of Arms of Canada is more than enough for that. He started his own foundation and named it after himself, which tons of well-to-do people do; the number of "Ernest W. Flagglebert Foundations" or whatever is pretty large, and we're not talking the John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation here. Googling the "Bruce M. Hicks Public Service Award" got me a whopping 13 google hits (at least one from his own site) which hardly supports the assertion that it's awarded at most independent schools in Canada (assuming there are more than 12 of them). The article so inflates everything he does I'd really like to take the standard approach to vanity, deleting this, then if he is notable maybe someone who doesn't just want to pour accolades over the guy can write a new article. My guess is anyone not related to him isn't going to. -R. fiend 00:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Concur with R. fiend. Please note that all this user's posts so far are related to the Hicks/Gidney/Gedney family. One of those is Coat_of_Arms_of_Sidney_Hicks: 90% of the content is an exact copy of the Sidney Hicks page; the heading that reads "Family History" (in both pages) may be also found in Gidney_Family_of_Nova_Scotia under "Brief Family History". Page Bartholomew_Gedney, also created by the user, is up for copyvio. Sorry to add more problems to a nomination that is already double, but I wasn't really sure what to do: shouldn't we consider dealing with these pages in a block, like Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility? vlad_mv 04:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Bruce, not Sidney. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There may be something notable lost in this mess, but sifting through it like we're panning for gold won't be the way to do it. Start over with verifiable and independent sources. Gamaliel 08:27, 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 DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 16:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Mercy Seat

Page is nothing but the lyrics to a Nick Cave song. Squidwina 12:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Plain copyvio, needs to be deleted from that page - David Gerard 14:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If you find a copyvio, please just follow the procedure at wikpedia:copyright problems WP:CP. I've blanked it and put the {{copyvio}} tag. Kappa 16:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a lyrics database, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 22:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I have written an article on Mercy seat based on its theological significance as the seat of God on top of the Ark of the Covenant. At the bottom of the article, I have a written a section on cultural associations namely a John Newton hymn, a Gordon Gano of the Violent Femmes gospel project, the Nick Cave song subject of the copyvio and the Neil LaBute 2002 play. For the moment, I would suggest redirecting to Mercy seat until someone feels inspired to write an article on any of these things. Capitalistroadster 11:33, 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. dbenbenn | talk 16:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colin

We don't want articles on every first name, and there's nothing particularly notable about this one. sjorford →•← 15:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• We have good articles on some names, but not this. This is trash. Borderline speedy. Delete. -R. fiend 19:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "It has some meaning, which I wasnt thrilled with when I learned it, and have thus forgotten it." Now that's funny. Delete. DaveTheRed 21:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete though the above line is indeed funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:25, 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 keep. I count 2 delete and 4 keep (from 2 keep and 2 redirect & keep). Deathphoenix 18:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Militarism

Seemingly neologistic term that doesn't google, and the article seems a bit propagandistic in nature. Keep or cut? Radiant! 15:58, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be a neologism as it only gets 50 Google hits. - SimonP 17:02, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Madeup neologism. —Lowellian (talk) 22:21, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Plainly not a neologism. The Google hits contain several references to a book called Germany Rampant: A Study in Economic Militarism written in 1939, for example. The Google hits look fairly scholarly. Perhaps just replace with a stub? Pcb21| Pete 22:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If it's a real term then redirect to war economy. Gazpacho 00:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I guess nobody can really call it a neologism if it's been around since 1939, but even so, it seems to barely be used outside of that one book (and its article). I wonder if there's a term for words that never took off... "nonstarterism" perhaps. In any case, I support a redirect as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite economic militarism has been used in a few generally read articles. Stirling Newberry 17:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Rewrite attempted).

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 21:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin Acosta-Diaz

Tennis player that has won a large number of local tournaments but doesn't seem to have a media presence yet. Radiant! 16:04, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Amateur athlete. Come back when you go pro. -R. fiend 19:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no verifiability - David Gerard 21:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, possibly vanity Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not in the ATP tournaments, not notable (and even then I'd say you have to at least get past the first round). Actually, this chap doesn't appear to be even at the Challenger level. Average Earthman 00:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems that readers are mistaken the nature of the listing: i.e., list of Dominicans, with a listing that says, for instance, the list of Dominicans they know. Those who lived or played tennis in the Dominican Republic between 1981 to 1989 could easily attest to the fact that Acosta-Diaz monopolized the news media with his tennis victories. Those who would like to seek verification only need to contact the Listin Diario or any other major newspapers in the Dominican Republic. But again, the listing is not about a person who "made" in the U.S. or the world tour but rather a famous dominican- in the Dominican Republic. I can only assume that none of the voters here know Rafael Moreno, Genaro De Leon, Menlith Acosta, Joel Schwab or Madeline Sanchez. All those individuals were also great Dominican tennis players and will also EQUALLY qualify to be listed. Milton Nunez

above comment by 70.19.46.41. -R. fiend 22:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Considering that the ATP's database is very large, this seems like a very strong "below the bar" case. By the way, I couldn't verify it either: "Edwin Acosta-Diaz" googles to 25 hits: those who are not from Wikipedia refer to a runner, not a tennis player. vlad_mv 04:56, 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. dbenbenn | talk 21:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edward TJ Brown

Kind of a politician, but google says that his most relevant work has been on a student senate. Radiant! 16:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• In my view, if you want to be a politican in any notable sense, you have to be elected to something. A few quotes from this article seem to indicate a certain lack of notability. "Brown has been outspoken on numerous political issues, and has achieved small notice in the Fargo-Moorhead area." Even big notice in the Fargo-Moorhead area isn't much. And placing "fourth place out of five candidates with 40 votes" in a race for mayor of what is by no means a large metropolis undermines claims of notability. I'm thinking this is vanity, and I really don't like vanity on Wikipedia. delete. -R. fiend 19:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 40 votes for mayor of a small town is not notable. Meelar (talk) 20:32, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I hope this doesn't sound mean or anything, but 40 votes in an election, even a local one, is pretty pathetic. Most of us, if we were running for something, could do better than that just with support from family, friends, neighbours, co-workers, and the like. As a result, I suspect he was running as a political exercise or as a joke, with no serious hope of winning, which does not equal notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:14, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just imagine how badly the fifth place guy must have done (his article coming soon, probably). -R. fiend 00:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It was the fifth-place guy's own fault, actually. He fell for that old "I'll vote for you if you vote for me" trick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 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 no consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 19:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic negotiation

Circular definition, with some opinions as to its possible usefulness somewhere in the future. Radiant! 16:13, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Might be original research; being unreadable, it's hard to tell. My strong suspicion is that this is machine generated parody cruft. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 22:21, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• As has just been demonstrated, context is vital. This is a real term in the field of electronic commerce. At the very best, this is keep with a humungous dose of {{cleanup-context}}. But instead I'm going to vote Merge with Business-to-business electronic commerce. Uncle G 01:44, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Keep, deleting all of the content and turning it into a substub if needed. It is a very valid subject, and it's surprising that it hasn't been developed yet. --Sn0wflake 01:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Megan1967 00:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Papertiger 18:19, 8 Feb 2006 The topic is a very relevant one, electronic negotiation being a very active research area with a lor of practical applications. I agree it needs complete re-write, though. I might take the time to do it, but no promises.
• If it needs a complete rewrite (and I agree that it does) and if no one has done so by the end of the discussion period, delete and post to "requested articles". A redlink is better than this. Rossami (talk) 05:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 21:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ettison_Clio

I'd argue that this is a band that few people outside of their region know and they don't really merit a Wikipedia entry given that they're "trying to get signed." — Anarchivist

• Looks like band vanity to me. As if we don't get enough of this stuff. Delete. -R. fiend 18:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for meeting Notability and Music Guidelines, specifically by undertaking a national tour, which appears to be verified by googling (3790 hits, FYI). Tuf-Kat 04:59, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Velupillai Prabhakaran. Deathphoenix 23:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pol Pot of Tamil Eelam

• Blatant violation of the Wikipedia:neutral point of view and of Godwin's law. There is a legitimate article about this person at Velupillai Prabhakaran. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 19:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. Gazpacho 00:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, yes. Radiant! 09:48, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Velupillai Prabhakaran. Megan1967 00:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Merging articles with defamatory names for issues with merging this page. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 11:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Fishal 20:51, 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 DELETE. It's now simply a redirect, which I'll leave. dbenbenn | talk 22:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaim Ben Pesach

Not notable enough and is self serving. 168.209.97.34 10:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) (note: anon did not correctly add the article to VfD, so I've moved this and done it right. -R. fiend 20:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC))

• Delete website owner and public-access TV host. Less than 300 Google hits. Not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• If some can verify that he did attack Soviet targets in New York, including tear gassing the Lincoln Center, and was imprisoned for it I will vote keep. As is, I cannot verify this from reliable sources. Article would need cleaning and NPOVing too. -R. fiend 20:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, reads like a promo. Megan1967 22:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He was in jail 5 and a half years. Chaim did not write this article. I did. It is documented on many websites. http://www.adl.org/extremism/jdl_chron.asp See the Septmber 2, 1986 listing.
  • The above comment by 68.80.129.105.
• I agree that it reads like promo, and seems self-serving. Just because he didn't write it himself doesn't mean it can't be vanity. And spending five years in jail is not notable in and of itself. Delete. Radiant! 09:38, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Then why even have an article on JTF? If you want to delete this article then you should move its contents to Jewish Task Force.
  • The above remark by 68.80.129.105.
  • Regarding the Jewish Task Force, he is already mentioned in there. So merge/redirect would be appropriate. However, the JTF article feels rather POV, so it may require some work. Radiant! 09:38, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything of note with Jewish Task Force Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 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 and move to Catspaw (comics) (with a space). Deathphoenix 00:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catspaw(comics)

Cruft. Doesn't establish notability. No links to anything. – flamurai (t) 20:51, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with what links to it. Kappa 21:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• As an LSH reader, I can tell you that that's not only cruft, it's outdated cruft, from at least two reboots ago. This character barely deserves a mention in the list of all LSH members ever. Delete. Okay, Luornuviolet has expanded this more than I thought possible. Keep. DS 16:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 01:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with some list of minor characters. Radiant! 09:41, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Xezbeth 19:06, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete--nixie 01:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC
• strong keep' and expand, while it is true that this character is one of the most minor Legionnaires she was nontheless a full member of the Legion, albiet only for a short time and therefore should be covered in the LSH members category. But then I am a Legion completist.-Luornuviolet

edited to add-Okay, I have now expanded the article and corrected the original errors in the first version (for instance she was not 'half human half cat' she got her powers from genetic manipulation.) What do you think? Is the article now improved enough to stay?

• Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThe Recycling Troll 18:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Catspaw (comics) (with a space) SoM 13:04, 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 DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] global warming skeptic

Article a dicdef and not otherwise encyclopedic either. Delete or redirect to Global_warming_controversy? Squidwina 22:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - It's a bad dictionary definition with no encyclopedic content. — Cortonin | Talk 00:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not redirect; anyone looking for anything like this is not going to type in this exact phrase. They will follow links from Global warming or use a text search. One of the things I dislike about Wikipedia is that it's very hard to find older relevant VfD's if an article is created under even a slightly differen title. I am 95% sure that a very similar article was voted for deletion some months ago but I can't find the relevant discussion. Anyway... even if this were a weren't a dicdef it would be a point-of-view breakout. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 22:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You may be thinking of (the sadly not late) consensus science, perhaps?
• Keep. The page is totally POV, in that the competing viewpoints on GW skeptics are nicely laid out for all to see, and you can choose which you prefer.
  • And the encyclopedic value of that is?? — Cortonin | Talk 23:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • (William M. Connolley 09:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Its a useful exposition of the opinions of the two sides.
• Delete. Any useful information on this subject can be included in Global warming. Carrp | Talk 23:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • GW is currently 55k. The last thing it needs is more added to it (William M. Connolley 09:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)).
• Delete. Dicdef and a dumb one at that. The meaning of the term is apparent to anybody who understands the word skeptic. The article seems to have no other purpose than to provide a pretext for a bit of editorializing. --BM 17:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-evident definition of the term. I can see no way to expand this article. Any discussion of the criticisms of Global Warming should be discussed in that context, not under this title. There are better ways to resolve the problems of the size fo the main article. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Those who celebrate

Non-notable group. One hit for "Those who celebrate" "matt wand", and only 3 displayed hits for "Those who celebrate" hulme. According to the article, produced only one self-released CD. Niteowlneils 22:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 22:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. - Jpo 02:52, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a vanity page, I created it, I have nothing to do with the group apart from having seen them a few times in the late 80s. And what is wrong with 'self releasing' an LP? It exists, as did the group quercus robur 19:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with self-released LPs, but consensus tends to be that a band is (usually) only notable if it has had at least one album released by a known (commercial or independent) record label. Self-releasing an album is only slightly more work than getting a book written in a vanity press. As such, delete. Radiant! 12:13, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 05:00, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. See [12] for a good argument therefor. The idea that if something isn't pop culture and doesn't show up in google that it shouldn't be here is antithetical to what Wikipedia is. Zantastik 23:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Very few people, if anybody, have ever claimed that something that isn't pop culture and doesn't show up here should be deleted. Tuf-Kat 02:16, 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 22:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Square (band)

Non-notable group. Only hit for "Red Square" "ian staples" is a Wikipedia mirror. allmusic.com hasn't heard of them either. Niteowlneils 22:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 00:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. DaveTheRed 04:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They existed, not vanity, I wasn't a member. they were part of the Music for Socialism movement and were notable within the late 1970s free improvisation scene. Two of the group went onto form B So gloBal quercus robur 19:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you provide any evidence that B So Global was notable? Kappa 22:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The term 'notable' is very subjective for a start, but anyway, [13] proves there is such a group and that they have 2 CD's out. I'm not really sure why this page is a VfD issue, the 'allmusic' arguement is a red herring, they are always inaccurate on anything I've ever looked up, they had a load of total crap about Crass, which led to the old Micheal wars about Pete Wright!. Is wikipedia only about 'well known' (is that what is meant by 'notable'?) bands, or is it more about a documentation of the significant (in some peoples terms at least) yet otherwise forgotten? I guess it's all about who writes history... quercus robur 22:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. If what quercusrobur claims below is added to the article (and verifiable), specifically regarding being a major part of the Southend-on-Sea scene, then they would meet the guidelines and I would change my vote. Tuf-Kat 05:04, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is wikipedia about?

To expand my arguement, and maybe become a little over-impassioned about what my vision of wikipedia is all about (but I do believe this is that important), I'm a long term wiki contributor, at one time up there in the 'most contributions' list, now a bit of a recovering wikiholic, and generally a level headed contributor with a strong belief in what wikipedia stands for, and it seems maybe ironic that I'm prepared to make a strong stand over what is 'just' a 'relatively unimportant' stub, but I don't create pages like this (Red Square) and those who celebrate lightly, certainly not for reasons of 'vanity', but because I believe that in certain contexts these groups had/have significance, both within the context of the history of free improvisation and in the former case, a documentation of the music scene of Southend on Sea, UK, where I have always lived.

The 'allmusic' arguement I have already addressed, the 'not many hits on Google' is PRECISELY why it is important that the history of groups like Red Square isn't lost forever. I have a wealth of detail, information and history of 'obscure' groups inside my head, based on experience, gigs attended, gig recordings, people I know/knew, etc etc, much that may well be of use/interest to future academics, historians, archivists, genreally interested people and the like, so do so many of us in all sorts of areas. If/when I die, that will be gone forever. So do we want a 'wikipedia' that just regurgitates what 'allmusic' posits as 'the truth' and 'notable' or do we want a richer tapestry with the gaps filled in?

To use an analogy, one of my principle fields of interest is permaculture and urban land rights issues. Whilst reading Peter Harper's classic book Radical Technology, published in 1972 and totally reflective of it's time, I came accross a mention of a South London based radical urban land rights group called The Urban Farmers, who pulled off various stunts in the late sixties such as planting vegetables in the middle of roads, etc, and also published a 'beautiful and graphically inovative' silk screened magazine. I wanted to know more. Google searches however produced nothing, nor did various email requests on likely groups, although I did get a couple of responses from old hippies who 'vaguely remembered' the urban farmers and their magazine, but couldn't be any more specific. Seems the urban farmers are lost forever. They certanly will be in a further 30 years. However, we now have the tool (Wikipedia) to ensure that such ephemeral but relevant history is documented rather than lost to future generations and researchers, which is why I am so passionate that the memory of groups like Red Square shouldn't be lost just because somebody in Australia (for example), presumably with little interest in the history of free improvisation or music in Southend on Sea, on a whim thinks they 'arn't notable'. Whose to say what is and isn't notable and in what context? So delete away if that is to be the majority decision, but the quality of a so-called 'free encyclopedia' will be greatly diminished as a result as far as I'm concerned, cheers quercus robur 01:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think I'm convinced by Quercus's argument. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Google isn't the only source we need to think about. I'm sure some of the other fans of Red Square would also have something to say about them. This is a well constructed article about something in the real world and the article above about its importance speaks for itself. Strong Keep.LukeSurl 20:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. QUercus Robur's argument is quite convincing.
  • Previous vote presumably by User:Zantastik. --Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:52, 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. dbenbenn | talk 22:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hierarchypedia

Self-promotion partly from User:Hierarchypedia for 4-month old website with 17 registered users. Less than 500 hits, and an Alexa rank of 1,432,947. Niteowlneils 22:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete seems like a neat site, but keeping anything with so few registered users would create a very dangerous precident. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 00:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep : this is not an advertisement. I started this article myself, before I had anything to do with the site. At that time, I was planning to do articles on a number of wikis that appeared to have some content (but have been waylaid of late - too busy). I do hope the community will be broad-minded enough to appreciate the value of the article, which does, after all, only state facts about the website. It does not in any way promote it, in my opinion. (I don't pretend to be neutral - I am an admin on Hierarchypedia - but that came after writing this article, not before. At that time, I wasn't even involved with Hierarchypedia in any way).
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 18:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Niteowl, delete. The issue is not whether the article is neutral; the issue is that there's millions of websites, and we don't want descriptions for all or even most of them. Radiant! 12:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I predict that it will become pretty notable at sometime in the future, but it is not notable now. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 05:12, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

• Hi, this is my website, just a note. It is not promotion, as I didn't star the article. It was started by Davidcannon. I will have no ill feeling if it is deleted --Hierarchypedia 01:38, 28 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. Deathphoenix 19:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of chemistry

Article is a substub on a non-topic. No value currently, and I see no way it could be expanded into a worthwhile article -- chemistry is a science, not a philosophy. Egomaniac 23:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to distinguish the philosophy of chemists from that of most other scientists. Redirect to Philosophy of science. Raven42 00:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Contrived and uneeded mess. The only link to it was from Philosophy of science and I just got rid of that along with a half dozen red links to various other philosophy of ... subsciences. -Vsmith 01:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also any philosophy specific to chemistry sould be included in the chemistry article. Also any redirect should be to chemistry as well. - Vsmith 01:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Abstain. The article goes around in circles and never gets around explaining what it is about; no amount of improvement can save a seemingly bogus article. Keep.--Sn0wflake 01:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Jpo 02:50, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think its possible to work up an article on this topic, and I've just rewritten it to show how. Much more might be done on these lines. --Christofurio 00:45, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why not just write a philosophy section for the chemistry article instead? -Vsmith 02:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The one choice would be no more or less arbitrary than the oter. There are articles on the philosophy of mathematics as well as mathematics, on the philosophy of physics as well as of physics. There is even an article on the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics, which seems to me to be a good deal more specific than chemistry! --Christofurio 04:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this, but your version of the article makes it even more in accordance to the VfD deletion police. You aren't talking about the subject within the article, but rather you are explaining topics which, albeit related, belong to their own articles. --Sn0wflake 02:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article is still a work in progress. When you check it again you'll see that I've added the pub. date of a book which is specifically titled The Philosophy of Chemistry, the name of its author, and two other philosophers who work in this field. If you are concerned about notability, check out this link, http://www.hyle.org/ -- --Christofurio 04:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Christofurio, I got your message regarding the edits and appreciate the attempt to clean the article up. Do you have any ideas for how to grow the article from where it currently stands? I'll reconsider my stance if so. Egomaniac 23:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just divided it into sections distinguishing results from method, and expanded a little about why handedness is a philosophically interesting result. I think somebody else should be able to take it from here, and I've done enough to qualify it as a notable scholarly field. --Christofurio 15:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I feel really bad about this in the face of all the work you've done on the article, but it just still isn't doing anything for me. I'm sticking to my original Delete. Egomaniac 00:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I fail to see how the philosophy of chemistry is vastly different to the philosophy of science, and this article doesn't do anything to inform me--nixie 01:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics vastly different from the philosophy of science? That's been around for two years. Has there been any effort to Vfd it? This article as it stands should give you a sense of where the philosophy of chemistry fits within the range of philosophical inquiries into the sciences. --Christofurio 15:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics is, in itself, not Wikipedia material. Not due to the content, but due to the "under construction" editor's note. If you understand about the subject, you should probably fix that before it goes to VfD. --Sn0wflake 16:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand almost nothing about thermal and statistical physics. Sorry. Judging from the comments on the talk page there, a couple of editors who do seem to have been knowledgeable started that project but then grew bored with it. --Christofurio 19:08, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

1. Redirect to philosophy of science. Neutrality^talk 19:13, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep Philosophy of chemistry is clearly a topic of substantial discussion and inquiry. A google search for the phrase (with quotes to yield only pages containing the words in a phrase) yields 10,500 hits. Wikipedia has articles on topics that have 5% of that much internet presence. If the article is currently substandard, there is clearly enough material to improve it with. Giving that potential for the article, chemistry is an important enough discipline to give the philosophy of it it's own page, just as the other topics within philosophy of science have their own pages.

I'm concerned that some of the votes for deletion have not taken into account a thorough review of the abundant philosophy of chemistry material available on the web. An interesting book review of Of Minds and Molecules: New Philosophical Perspectives on Chemistry by Michael Weisberg, Philosophy, Stanford University concludes "issues in philosophy of chemistry may not raise the kind of deep conceptual perplexity that the quantum mechanical measurement problem raises, and they may not be as conceptually complex as debates about optimality arguments in evolutionary biology. They are, however, essential to understanding what makes science work and progress."

The review also wites: "The contributors to this book are philosophers, chemists and philosopher-chemist teams (including the editors). Collaboration between philosophers and chemists is one of its most exciting features; it focuses the discussion on the application of traditional topics in philosophy of science to chemistry and on previously unexplored topics native to chemistry."

These directories appear to be good places to start research:

• • The International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry
  • Web resource directory at the International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry
  • Philosophy of Chemistry directory at MavicaNET (Multilingual Search Catalog)
  • Philosophy of Chemistry directory

--Nectarflowed 20:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It makes a nice change from all the fictional fancruft! Miss Pippa 22:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Miss Pippa and Nectar. It seems clear with our respective dissents that there is no consensus for deletion. --Christofurio 16:23, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Someone above said chemistry is a science, not a philosophy. Well, science is not philosophy, either, so would that mean the philosophy of science, a major discipline, ought to be abandoned? Specific applications of science have peculiar philosophical implications with respect to methodology and underlying assumptions. Most philosophers of science are oriented towards physics, and, happily, a growing number are coming from chemistry and biology. It makes perfect sense to have such an article. icut4u
  • Now, yes. Take a look at the original version to see what I was talking about when I said that, though. And Christofurio, I apologize for taking so long to be convinced. Keep Egomaniac 22:35, 8 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.