Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 24

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 23:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pestszentlőrinc

This article obviously has an incorrect character in its title, so it should be deleted. (There is an article with a well-formed title on the same topic, Pestszentlorinc, it contains all the information mentioned in the previous article.) --Adam78 00:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• No, the article obviously has the correct spelling of the place; it's Pestszentlőrinc, not Pestszentlorinc. The Wikipedia software has trouble displaying Unicode article titles, but people will be searching using the Unicode characters just the same. Therefore Pestszentlőrinc should be redirected to the ASCII rendering Pestszentlorinc, and the latter article should have one of those "The title of this article is incorrect due to technical limitations" notices. Psychonaut 02:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, this template doesn't work!
* Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pestszentlőrinc
I wanted to link to the above, but the deletion template doesn't work. Are these characters really so nasty? At least I can link (above) to the article with the faulty title, and from that page you can reach its "Votes for deletion" entry. The problem is more than obvious... --Adam78 01:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's easier if I copy the appropriate "Votes for deletion" message:

This article obviously has an incorrect character in its title, so it should be deleted. (There is an article with a well-formed title on the same topic, Pestszentlorinc, it contains all the information mentioned in the previous article.) --Adam78 00:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note: redirect would also be possible, and this way users perhaps wouldn't feel necessary to create a new article with a "more precise" name. --Adam78 01:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect completed --Adam78 15:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 19:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rasa

Self-described original research: "This article is an excerpt from my book of the same title. The book is a published version of the thesis submitted to the Department of Culture, Government of India...", "It is only hypothetical, presently." Niteowlneils 02:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:38, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research/essay. Megan1967 02:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with above. Zzyzx11 06:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article was original research, but the concept is a well-known one. It was quoted in Tom Stoppard's play In the Native State. I've rewritten a stub. DJ Clayworth 04:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep DJ's new stub. Beautiful rescue job. - Lucky 6.9 00:01, 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 23:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perdo Rodigez

No such character. No hits on Google. No other article links to this one. Delete.-gadfium 02:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that the anon author of this also created Jacob van Artevelde, who did exist. Perhaps someone should check the facts there.-gadfium 03:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable - only wiki and mirrors with Google returned. Possible hoax. Megan1967 04:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Leaning Delete. Tried a variety of spelling variations and still couldn't find any thing. While the anon's Jacob van Artevelde contrib is accurate in the broad details, the detailed timeline seems to vary from the one at the Columbia Encyclopedia. Also, the anons used different spellings of Ghent, so may not be the same person. Niteowlneils 05:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• We were two people trying out Wikipedia's resilience to attacks. I am now trying to undo the damage we have done, which involves the Perdo Rodigez article and some changes to the Jacob van Artevelde story which I have already undone. I apologise for the abuse. About the changes in time, the en.wikipedia.org dates were in fact incorrect at the time when we made the abuse. See also nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_van_Artevelde
• Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Radiant! 10:42, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 23:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Trautinger

Article does not establish notability. Delete.-gadfium 08:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Seems like a friend's eulogy about a nice guy, but not a famous or particularly influential one. delete Kappa 08:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree. delete. Aleph4 09:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a professor Franz Trautinger, at the University of Vienna, who has published on dermatology. The Trautinger in the current article is definitely a different individual. No vote as yet. Megan1967 23:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely. The professor gave a talk in November 2004, our Trautinger died in 2003. Aleph4 09:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A eulogy. Carrp | Talk 23:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Leaning Delete unless someone that can read the non-English hits comes up with something to say about the professor. Of the ~100 hits, going thru the first half I didn't see anything he published solo, and a number of the hits are for jointly signed 'Letters to the Editor' of various publications. Niteowlneils 04:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article it was just a silly joke of mine!(just check the ip's)
  • The above from User:193.170.68.246. —Korath (Talk) 18:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense article from the start --Henrygb 23:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 23:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins

Just a table of Golfers and how many wins they have. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Nor is it an almanac. Also 20 is kind of an arbitrary cut off. If this gets deleted, then we should probably also delete most of the articles in Category:Golf_records, as they are very similar. DaveTheRed 08:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• A friendly request to Wincoote - please don't post a lengthy 'rebuttal' under every vote that runs counter to your opinion. Thanks. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a standard practice on controversial discussions. It is not "friendly" to attempt to deny me a right of replyWincoote 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not standard to repeat your own opinion dozens of times. I'm not denying you anything, I'm simply requesting that you not repeat yourself. A good argument is worn down in repetition; a bad argument simply remains bad no matter how often it is repeated. Radiant! 21:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have made many different arguments, some of which only occurred to me at a later stage. Wincoote 11:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, I'm a little new at this, but when I tried to update the vdf log, I accidentally forgot to change the PageName field in the last step. So now the entry is screwed up and I don't know how to fix it. Someone please help DaveTheRed 09:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yay! someone fixed it! DaveTheRed 10:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep - it's highly verifiable - Wikipedia has much almanac-like information - but it would date a bit easily - David Gerard 12:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is arbitrary, and so are Golfers with most PGA Tour wins (meaning 20+ wins), Most PGA Tour wins in a year (meaning 8 or more), and List of golfers with most major title wins (meaning 5 or more). As can be seen from the varying quantities (20, 8, 5) this is a very arbitrary category. Wikipedia is not the Guinness book of records. However, the category also includes Official World Golf Rankings, which is very notable and should in fact be the correct way of displaying this. Since there is an official standard, I would suggest we delete the non-official ones. Radiant! 13:53, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I created this page. Wikipedia is an almanac. It won't "date" any more than any other article which requires updating because I will be updating it, and others can easily do so. It is a totally different thing from the Official World Golf Rankings. It is not arbitary to select different numbers of events for differnt lists because the are more tour events than majors and a player can play more events in a career than in a season. The numbers are in each case designed to show which are the really distinguished players. All of the criteria of inclusion of tourmaments are official and all of this information can be confirmed from the official sites of the leading golf tours. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever. This information is fundamental for the comparison of the career achievements of professional golfers and cannot be better represented in any other form. I consider these lists to be absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia's coverage of professional golf. They list the most widely used objective criteria for assessing golfers' achievements, and provide a context for the claims made about golfer's level of distinction in their individual articles, which are often difficult to assess unless you have a very good knowledge of the sport. The World Rankings (I wrote that article too by the way) shift every week and are actually more subjective and controversial. They also only go back to 1986, so they are completely useless for assessing most of the greats of the game.
• I suspect that Radiant!'s involvement here is intended as revenge for my exposure of him as a practioner of "extreme deletion" a so-called "sport" in which points are awarded for getting legitimate articles deleted - see the link on his user page unless he has removed it now to protect his credibility.
  • An ad hominem doesn't substantiate anything. You didn't bother to check what I've been doing the past weeks, which is categorizing every article on Dead End Pages. You didn't bother to check your private mailbox here, where I explained that. You didn't bother to double-check my user page before accusing me of changing it, since I didn't change it. And you didn't bother to check the obvious markings on both the Extreme Deletion page and my user page indicating that neither is in any way serious. You should read up on Civility, Wikiquette and Good Faith before making wild allegations like these. Radiant! 19:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I knew what you were doing and I don't think it is a good use of time. You have noted yourself that the votes for deletion page is overburdened. I don't think your approach is beneficial. The dead end pages system is obselete imo because it ignores the category system. I did read your message. I don't accept that a disclaimer makes the ridiculous joke you signed up for legitimate. I couldn't check your user page because the system was frozen, as it has been much of the time for the last few days. Wincoote 23:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • No, you didn't understand what I wrote. The Dead End Pages is very relevant, since most of them are valid pages that aren't categorized yet. Hence, I categorize them, and that is a useful activity. The VfD system is more burdened than it used to, and that is unfortunate, but it isn't overburdened as of yet, and anyway that is no reason to stop cleanup. And the system hasn't been frozen the last few days, and you know it because you have made substantial edits. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • The system has been frozen at times. When I tried to check your page I had two copies of Wikipedia open, one to edit this article and another to look at your user page. The latter timed out twice.Wincoote 17:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to always assume good faith and not assume revenge. Also, the "extreme deletion" page is satire and has the heading "This page is satire, and we must point this out to the humor impaired as it does not represent any official or unofficial Wikipedia policy, past or present.".Carrp | Talk 17:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no reason to rely on assumptions one way or the other as he has made many nominations which go against established consensus. Wincoote 17:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • This does not go against the established consensus. It merely goes against your opinion. Radiant! 19:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• The nomination is by a user who registered on 21 Feb, and appears not to be aware of the range of articles to be found in Wikipedia. It's not just for six thousand word essays about philosophy and physics. Wincoote 17:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I registered on Feb. 15th, not the 21st. I admit that still makes me relatively new, but I have been studying the vdf pages and the deletion policy. The fact that there are people agreeing with me means I can't be wholly off-base. Secondly, as far as the article goes, I'm not saying this information is not useful, just that it would probably fit better in some other form. We could probably make an infinite number of lists about what golfers won which tournaments. Who chooses the criteria for the lists? I think this info would be better represented either a) appended to the relevant golfer's articles or b) by having one article devoted to all such lists. DaveTheRed 20:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The information can and should be mentioned in the relevant articles, but that only performs part of the function. It does not provide any context to assess the significace of the players win taly against that of other players. Having the information the site makes it easier to add these details to individual articles. I have already started to add the appropriate links. Wincoote 22:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Why can't it perform the rest of the function, as you say? Why can't we provide context in the relevent articles? Can we not say "John Doe has won 26 PGA tournaments, the 6th largest number of wins for one person" in his article? DaveTheRed 00:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course there should be statements like that, but not instead of the table. It is more cumbersome to keep up to date. Are you offering to do it for every player for the next forty years or so like I am planning to update the table? It wouldn't show relative numbers or the names of the comparable players for comparison unless there was a whole paragraph in each case - is the table in a less digestible form. And the only way to keep such statements up to date, is to keep the table up to date, which clearly demonstrates how useful it is. Wincoote 08:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Why have one article? This information relates to different tours, each of which have there own section. I will be adding the articles to each section, if I have not already done so in all cases. The specific titles tell people exactly what they can find. A single overall title would have to be vaguer and would be less likely to encourage use. Wincoote 22:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are plenty of arbitrary cut-offs in sports. See MLB players who have hit 30 or more home runs before the All-Star break or List of pitchers who have struck out 18 or more batters in a nine-inning baseball game. As long as the pages are updated on a regular basis, I see no problem with keeping them. Carrp | Talk 17:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't how this can be useful, actually. --Neigel von Teighen 17:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you able to give any reasons for your opinion? What basis can it have apart from a conviction that Wikipedia should not cover golf? But Wikpedia does cover sport in detail - tens of thousands of articles probably. If one is interested in professional golf these articles are among the most useful in Wikipedia - far more useful than most of the individual profiles. It should be noted that the voting has been appended to the least important article, but the result is supposed to apply to all of them. Wincoote 17:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, you yourself tend not to give any reasons for your votes other than personal attacks. Anyway, yes, Wikipedia should cover golf, but it's not particularly useful to make four separate lists of people who have won an arbitrary number of tournaments. Particularly since there's an official ranking already on the site. Radiant! 19:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have already explained the limitations of the rankings. Read the articles for more details. They did not exist until 1986. Jack Nicklaus is nobody in the eyes of the rankings. Full historical records of old rankings are not even included on the official site. The oldest year end table is for 2001. Tournament wins are OVERWHELMINGLY the criteria on which golfers' careers are judged by posperity. There is not the slightest intention on the part of the operators of the official rankings that they should replace the role of tournament wins. Wincoote 23:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These articles seem to have somewhat arbitrary levels set — why not, say, 17 wins? (Yes, I am aware that base-10 counting is quite common.) As Radiant! notes above, there is an officially established ranking system. If the consensus is that there should also be a list by number of Champions Tour wins, then there should simply be a list of all winners, not only winners that have cleared some arbitrary bar, in my opinion. HyperZonk^talk 18:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want to extend the lists down to one win you are welcome to do so. I do not have infinite time. Every reputable golf site has such lists with a cut off point of more than one win. Wincoote 22:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all of these. These are indications of notable golfers throughout history based on the number of tour wins. We have a commitment to keep the lists up to date so keep.

Capitalistroadster 18:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteThis is just a meaningless table which could/should be incorporated in more detailed biographies elsewhere or even a researched page on golf tours etc. This is not even an article. Giano 23:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In the last couple of weeks, I have written articles about every significant professional golf tour which did not already have one (about fifteen) and made major enhancements about to the one about the most prominent tour: the PGA Tour. There is still a separate place for records in a reference work. In any sporting reference book, you are likely to find a mixture of text based and tabular content. Why should Wikipedia be different? If these tables are meaningless, why can the like be found in almost every reference book concerned with professional golf? Are they all doing something stupid? Wincoote 23:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Hyperzonk and Giano. Megan1967 23:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Megan is a hyper-deletionist of sports articles despite demonstrating no knowledge of sport. Like Giano, her deletion vote may be motivated by past conflicts with me (in his case there is little doubt of this, ever since I corrected some clear factual errors of his, which led him to engage in personal abuse, he had been tracking my user page, looking for opportunities to attack me). No one would be voting to delete this information if it was in the main articles for the tours, but it is much more useful in this context because links can be provided from the indiviual articles directly to the relevant information. Links to the main articles, such as PGA Tour would be much less clear, especially as I continue to expand those articles. Wincoote 08:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Normally I ignore comments like yours however, I have no idea about any past conflicts with you Wincoote. If there is, please reference where this past conflict occured otherwise please desist with these wild accusations. Megan1967 22:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • An ad hominem doesn't substantiate anything. Wincoote, you have made your point, now you must allow others to make theirs. There is no point in reiterating your arguments under every vote that isn't to your liking. We understand you feel passionate about the subject, but arguably that also means you aren't objective about it. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There have been no detailed rebuttals of the many arguments for retention that I have put forward by anyone who demonstrates a good understanding of professional golf. All the deletion votes are apparently by people who do not know the subject.Wincoote 08:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • And once more, an ad hominem doesn't substantiate anything. Radiant! 09:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

My last "insult" to Wincoote included the words "Grow up!" Giano 09:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's been two months now since I offended your pride by pointing out some simple factual errors you had made and you've been stalking me ever since. I haven't inititiated any of the contacts between us since early January. Wincoote 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but that is irrelevant to this discussion, isn't it? Radiant! 21:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I would vote to delete or rename Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins because I think it's a bit arbitrary to say 20, also it's quite high so there aren't that many golfers on it. I would prefer if it was renamed as "Golfers with most Champions Tour wins" and started at 5, 10 or 20. However I think that the other lists such as Most PGA Tour wins in a year and List of golfers with most major title wins are worth keeping as it is useful information. Perhaps it might be best to standardise the start at 5 though, then as the list grows longer and those with only 5 become less notable then move start to 10 then 20 etc. However, if it's all or nothing I'd prefer to keep all of them. -- Lochaber 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Realised I should probably say why I think they should be kept. Firstly, IMO these list are not the same as the official rankings. Rankings look at a certain point in time whereas these lists allow comparisions between golfers who were playing at different time. Secondly, they certainly aren't meaningless, they might be meaningless to certain people in the same way that an article about the International Congress of Mathematicians is meaningless to me but I recognise that for those with interest in the subject they do have meaning. Thirdly, on the idea of them being arbitrary, Wincoote has answered the questions about put to him about the cut-offs being arbitrary (except for the Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins), anyone is welcome to expand the other articles to include all players who have won each tournament. Fourthly, while the facts can and probably are being incorporated into the golfers biographies, the purpose of these articles is to have a focal point where golfers can be compared. As someone who doesn't know much about golf I wouldn't know which golfer has won the most PGA tournaments and I would have to go searching loads of biographies to find that out. As for there being seperate articles, well they are separate tournaments that people may look up seperately. -- Lochaber 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Also if we are standardising then it might be best to rename List of golfers with most major title wins to "Golfers with most major titles wins" particularly because I would like to see little bit at the top about what the major titles are. I know it's at the top of the table but I think it worth having a little explanation at the top as all the articles are accessible in Category:Golf Records, separate from the tournaments and someone like me who doesn't know much about golf would like to know why those tournaments are major and others aren't, do more people play in them? -- Lochaber 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, but I still say delete. However, I should qualify that, as a golf fanatic, when I wrote "meaningless" I meant "meaningless" in the context of this article standing alone. This table and the other articles need to be incorporated where they are relevant. The titles are neither "user friendly" or likely to typed in by anyone seeking information. If they are just here so they can be referred to from other pages then they may as well be there in the first place. Giano 12:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I see your point and I agree the titles are not user-friendly. I think there need to be standardisation in the titles. IMO "Golfers with (the?) most PGA Tour wins" is a good title b/c it is that's the kind of thing that one might stick in google or any search engine if you wanted to know. The others should be called "Golfers with (the?) most PGA Tour wins in one year", "Golfers with most major title wins", "Golfers with (the?) most Champions Tour wins" and so forth. I also think that they need to be expanded. -- Lochaber 13:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • On combining I suppose it's a style issue, I wouldn't agree that they should be combined with the individual tour / tournament pages just because I think it makes those articles messy. To me, who as I mentioned knows v. little about golf, I would go to the PGA tour page to find out what it is, but I'm not necessarily be interested in who has the most wins. I would favour creating a seperate articles for the things like the list of leading money winners by year as well. If you look at the Routes section in the Ryanair article, which btw is a featured article, you'll see there is a link for a seperate page for the destinations. It makes the Ryanair page easier to read, if you stuck a big list in there it would interrupt the flow of the article. I suppose it's not an issue if the parent article is quite short but I think that the golf tour articles can be expanded further - like the PGA TOUR article already has been - and separating these types of things saves clean-up later. Anyway, that's just my opinion and there is a certain presumption on my part that the tour / tournament articles can be expanded to the point where this becomes an issue and that the lists will be regularly updated. -- Lochaber 13:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Apologies for writing so much but I just want to get it all out there... -- Lochaber 13:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it would be a good idea if Windcoote is keen to retain these tables, he amalgamated them into ONE large article entitled "Golfing statistics" or "Golfing records" or something similar, where they could all be lumped together; that way the index box at the top of the page would make each table and section readily available. But as small scrappy little pages of one table or so each with little or no explanatory information delete is the only option Giano 13:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I can see your point but I think that combining all these articles will just give you one entirely messy page. I think your idea would work if what there is right now was all there was ever going to be, but keeping them separate gives them room to expand beyond what they currently are. Having them in Category:Golf Records allows them to all be accessed in the handy manner you describe, though maybe it should be changed to Golf statistics as these lists aren't actually records and the official rankings definitely aren't. Anyway I think we've had our say now (or at least I've said enough ;-)), it's really up to others now to decide what is best. -- Lochaber 15:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • There is no minimum size for a Wikipedia article, and there are tens of thousands which are shorter than these articles (especially the other three larger ones - the debate has been cunningly attached to the smallest article). The Champions Tour list is the shortest because the Champions Tour is much younger than the PGA Tour or the majors. It is intended to include players with a similar level of achievement to the other lists. I have written dozens of golf articles recently, on tours, tournaments, and individual players. I am rapidly boosting the number of links between them. The value of having separate list is illustrated by, for example, the link in Greg Norman which goes directly to the one list out of the four which is relevant to him (Golfers with most PGA tour wins), and not to the other three which aren't. Wincoote 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have added players with four and three majors to the majors list, and will get down to one on this list eventually, though not on the others. I have also moved it to Golfers with most major title wins as requested by Lochaber, expanded the introduction to the list, and added a link to majors, which hadn't been written when I did the list (the article start dates are 31 Jan and 15 Feb). Wincoote 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitrary list. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What is arbitary about it? Do you just mean this list or all of them. They are not all of quite the same nature (and once again it is inappropriate that the discussion has been appended to the articles which is clearly the least significant of the four). There is a great lack of detail in the negative votes. I should have mentioned before that the level of 20 wins on the PGA Tour actually has huge and official significance. It confers life membership of the tour, which means that a player no longer has to finish in the top 125 on the money list to retain his tour card. There may be a similar rule for the Champions Tour. I will go and look it up. Wincoote 17:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't find a full statement of eligibility criteria for Champions Tour events, but by inference from the profiles of Champions Tour members on the official site, the eqivalent status is "Top 30 on the all time money list" which would be much harder to maintain as many of the lines of such a table would change every week, rather than a maximum of one. Wincoote 17:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Windcoote there is an immense amount of detail and helpful suggestions in the negative vote, why don't you stop repeating yourself and read them Giano 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Concur with Giano. Radiant! 21:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • I have acted on two helpful suggestions, neither of which came from either of you. This vote appears to be the only one on this page in which Giano has participated. Whatever one thinks of this article, it is not credible to suggest that it is more deserving of deletion than all of the others. Giano's involvement here is clearly based on a personal vendetta rather than a concern for the well-being of Wikipedia. Despite his claim that he has stopped tracking my page, which I already knew to be almost certainly untrue, he appeared here just after this debate was mentioned on my user page. Wincoote 11:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Please compose yourself, and confine your hysterical tantrums to your user page where they belong. Giano 11:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • And once more, Wincoote, an ad hominem doesn't substantiate anything. We're trying to keep a sensible discussion here, and your aim seems to be to insult everyone who disagrees with you. Your antics haven't convinced me to change my vote to anything else than delete. Radiant! 12:16, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lists like these are encyclopedic. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:41, 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 23:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Golfers with most PGA Tour wins

The criterium for inclusion on this page may be considered arbitrary. The decision for deleting or keeping this article should be the same as that for Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins mentiond above. Radiant! 13:50, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Please do not vote here
  • The official and non-arbitary status of the win level chosen is now explained in the article, and the vote above should be disregarded for this article. There has apparently been a calculated attempt to undermine all four articles by basing the whole debate around the least important of them. Wincoote 11:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No, Wincoote, this is not a conspiracy. The article nominated was simply the first one found. It is simply the case that according to everybody except you, the same reasoning applies to all four articles, therefore the same votes can be used for all four articles. Radiant! 12:12, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most PGA Tour wins in a year

The criterium for inclusion on this page may be considered arbitrary. The decision for deleting or keeping this article should be the same as that for Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins mentiond above. Radiant! 13:52, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Please do not vote here
  • This article is more important than the one to which the debate is appended because the PGA Tour is the leading golf tour in the world. There has apparently been a calculated attempt to undermine all four articles by basing the whole debate around the least important of them. Wincoote 11:32, 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 NO CONSENSUS according to user:dbenbenn

[edit] List of golfers with most major title wins

The criterium for inclusion on this page may be considered arbitrary. The decision for deleting or keeping this article should be the same as that for Golfers with 20 Champions Tour wins mentiond above. Radiant! 13:54, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Please do not vote here
  • This article is more important than the one to which the debate is appended because the major championships have much higher status than the Champions Tour. It is also a much longer and fuller article. There has apparently been a calculated attempt to undermine all four articles by basing the whole debate around the least important of them. Wincoote 11:33, 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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devonport High School for boys

This was tagged as a speedy with no reason given, perhaps because it was a substub, a secondary school, and/or had an external link. I've expanded it a bit, and brought it here to give it a chance. Kappa 09:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. School.--Centauri 10:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there's nothing in the article that establishes its notability. Radiant! 11:40, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete - David Gerard 12:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to be a decent enough stub. - SimonP 15:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per the "Secondary schools are not notable in and of themselves" train of thought. HyperZonk^talk 17:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This and all school articles.Wincoote 17:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this and all other educational institutions of all grade levels as they are inherently noteworthy. GRider\^talk 18:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. This secondary school seems to be involved in some special advanced programs, and has a long history. BEEFSTEW score of only 4 (A, B, D, H). Could really use some notable alumni and a picture. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 23:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, while I would agree that universities and other tertiary institutions should be included in Wikipedia, this is essentially a secondary school. Just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 23:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I usually vote to delete high school articles, but this one seems somewhat notable. It's one of the first four Specialist Engineering Colleges in the U.K. just above the bar of notability. DaveTheRed 23:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What 'bar'?!Dan100 18:01, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• EXTREME BEEFY KEEP. —RaD Man (talk) 02:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Are people still voting to delete school articles? Keep.--Gene_poole 04:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete it too. Not under deletion policy. --Andylkl 13:32, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, which is a good reason to delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At least it tries to establish notability, but it doesn't really succeed. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly fine stub. --Zero 12:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not quite notable. Jonathunder 21:52, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Keep. I still maintain that high schools are not inherently notable, but this article establishes notability. — Gwalla | Talk 03:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS: removing vote tally template as this discussion isn't nearly long enough to warrant it.
• keep The Recycling Troll 09:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 20:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Are people still voting to keep school articles? Gamaliel 05:28, 2 Mar 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 19:23, Mar 4, 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 21:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as stated by many before, and I'm sure will be stated by many to come, secondary schools are notable. In addition, I don't see why school articles shouldn't develop into more time, as current and past pupils will have the motivation and knowledge to do so. Drw25 21:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. -CunningLinguist 02:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Returns appox. 1,000 results on Google. Notable enough, keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 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. School. LukeSurl 23:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP all REAL places -RickK^h^h^h^h^h. Schools are inherantly notable and this belongs on Wiki.  ALKIVAR™ 03:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: In regards to claims of vote-stacking, their are large amounts of people who beleive well-written articles for schools are inherently notable. Merely bringing an article to someones attention is no more votestacking than providing a link for someone is. If you'll notice, GRider's contributions were far and wide and not concentrated on any bloc or mailing list group. Speaking for myself, I evaluated the article and voted to keep it out of sincere belief that it deserved to be kept and not out of any votestacking motivation. I have faith that the majority of the other voters did as well. Thank you for your time. -CunningLinguist 03:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable --Carnildo 05:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a real place, Mark Richards 21:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. DHSB is one of the most famous schools in Plymouth. it would be stupid to get rid of it. Tim Morris 15:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, schools are notable (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:18, 9 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 00:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aukrust

Geneology. Xezbeth 10:30, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 12:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, Delete as genealogy. Radiant! 12:37, Feb 24, 2005
• Delete without verifiable refs - David Gerard 12:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bluemoose 14:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Both Olav and Kjell Aukrust are notable Norwegians (Olav especially, since he was important in the development of the Nynorsk language)--> this is a notable family. It happens to be a long-established one that we actually know the back-history of (I know the stuff about farms seems really boring, but Norwegian dialects actually varied on a farm-to-farm level; Nynorsk was an attempt to standardise these dialects by giving emphasis to the "uncorrupted" rural versions over the Danish-influenced urban ones). My suggestion is that this should be renamed as "Aukrust Family" with "Aukrust" set as a redirect, and the text edited so it reads less like a geneology - i.e. giving more emphasis on the family members who are well-known and giving the backhistory later. I will also "dump" the information in this article into the talk pages for Olav and Kjell in case it is deleted. --VivaEmilyDavies 22:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] carnivore_characteristics

No need for this article in addition to carnivore. Currently nothing to merge. Squidwina 10:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing relevent in here now, little chance of article ever expanding to a necessary sub-article of carnivore. — Asbestos | Talk 12:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. Radiant! 10:42, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no substance whatsoever, current or potential. Jdcooper 14:38, 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 no consensus, so keep (ignoring the sockpuppet votes). Deathphoenix 02:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] L33t programming language

Non-notable programming language, article writen by language's creator. Google find about 63 unique hits, of which almost all are Wikipedia or Wikipedia-mirror hits. Only 3 or 4 relevant non-encyclopedia links. Trying to find examples of the language's only major program ("Hello world") using Google finds under 5 hits.(Delete) — Asbestos | Talk 12:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is nevertheless a valid exercise in computer science; the point was to create a language with certain 'absurd' properties (e.g. self-modifying code) and challenging computer geeks to write code in it. The fact that the syntax looks like l33tspeak is an inside joke. Keep. Radiant! 12:33, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The description you give of it makes it suspiciously sound like original research... Phils 12:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Close but not quite. Since the programming language actually exists, a simple description of it and the reasons it was designed is not original research. Radiant! 13:45, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • It certainly exists, it just appears that noone else has ever heard of it. — Asbestos | Talk 14:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The existence of a real programming language that is written as l33tspeak is somewhat notable. 193.167.132.66 12:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• As the author of the article and the language, I (somewhat predictably) vote keep. The article is about the language, not the author, and I didn't write it for money or personal glory - I just thought people would be interested. There's a pretty good selection of obscure esoteric languages with little real-world use already described on Wikipedia, for people who happen to be interested in such things. In my humble opinion l33t's unusual syntax makes it as notable as any other esoteric language. There have been people other than myself writing interpreters and programs for l33t, which to me implies that there is some interest in it. I won't be offended if the page gets deleted, but I felt it was a valid contribution to Wikipedia.
  • Note: Comment by 159.153.176.45 --InShaneee 18:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-PlasmaDragon 14:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can appreciate the effort it must have took to make this, but the fact is that it's not in wide use, nor will it most likely ever be. That means no notability, and most likely vanity. --InShaneee 16:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful example of esoteric programming language. Fun example. This is a chicken/egg problem. it isn't notable so Wikipedia shouldn't list it, but then if noone spreads it around, how can it ever become notable?
• 5 google hits for a programming topic and we're talking about keeping this, while Chicago aldermen face serious chances of deletion? What's this place coming to? Delete until somebody proves widespread notability. Meelar (talk) 17:29, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• I think this definitely counts as non-notable Delete Jackliddle 21:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless there is some evidence that this language attains some measure of notoriety. The article is pretty much cut and paste from the authors' web sites anyway (the article's external links). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google does overstate the importance of technical topics so I'd expect quite a few hits for anything notable. This isn't a notable language. Carrp | Talk 23:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with reservations, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research Gazpacho 00:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Del33t. —RaD Man (talk) 02:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone's weekend project, like most "esoteric" programming languages. I'm sure it was a lot of fun, but it's very far to the wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Brainfuck and Befunge and other esoteric programming languages are not in 'wide use' (hell, not even Haskell is in wide use), but their presence here is merited. There are not one but two interpreters -- python and ruby -- and I find that to be worthy of mention, and the accomplishment notable. Avriette 13:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 13:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure it rates an article yet (verging on something like original research), but it's very clever, vastly amusing and really needs a mention on Slashdot! If it's marked for deletion here, it should go to NerdyPC or somewhere, which has offered to keep lots of deleted Wikipedia content - David Gerard 12:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Other esoteric languages are on Wikipedia, what makes L33t so different, just because it's not in wide use? Who uses Brainfuck for their day to day programming needs? It's just there to prove that it can be done. Some people probably do, and just because the article is written by the author (well, on top of its lack of use) is no justification for deletion. Mind you, I think it would be better of more of the article were on a website dedicated to the language, but the article's rather detailed and well written, so why not keep it? Applegoddess 05:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Flamingspinach 19:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep The Recycling Troll 18:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep Snal 1:41, 02 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually by anon IP 85.202.139.114. User's only edit. Username doesn't exist. — Asbestos | Talk 03:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I cant believe this is up for deletion! This language is obviously not in wide use - the purpose of esoterics is not to be used, but to be explored, experimented with, and laughed at (with). Given that l33t language actually does exist, this article is therefore factual and worthy of wiki. It's true that google doesnt have much else on this language - which is why the Wiki article is even more so a valuable resource! --EatMyShortz 03:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a primary source. —Korath (Talk) 05:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, its not a place to publish new research. This is not "new research" - it is factual as I stated. I use Wiki as a "primary source" - that's more or less the whole point, it is a place to find information without having to track down individual sites. l33t does have a site, but its more handy here, and better for Wiki. I think the volume of users who want to keep this page should speak for itself, but if deleted, this could also set a dangerous precedent for an awfully large number of other pages on Wikipedia, including about 50 other esoteric languages. --EatMyShortz 12:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, original research. Neither interesting nor informative. Esoteric programming languages are not inherently notable; any half-competent computer science student can design one and implement an interpreter or compiler in well under 24 hours. No evidence whatsoever has been presented that this is on the level of Befunge, Brainfuck, or INTERCAL. —Korath (Talk) 05:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This page, while obviously not about a mainstream language, is an excellent example of an esoteric programming language. I can't believe it's up for deletion. (I know this is my first edit, but I am a long time reader...) Gfxmonk 08:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. — Asbestos | Talk 13:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - How do we learn more if pages are deleted? ToriaURU 13:58, 3 Mar, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's seventh edit. —Korath (Talk) 16:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am getting sick of this "user's opinion doesn't count because they dont post much" attitude. Gfxmonk explained already his only edit, and ToriaURU has seven already! Provide some arguments for your case instead of trying to discredit people who have equally valid opinions. --EatMyShortz
  • I would like to think that no matter how many edits a person has, all voices are equal here. ToriaURU
• k33pz0re - This is one of those rare gems that I occasionally come across on Wikipedia. I think it's a rather clever idea and, as others have already stated, other esoteric languages are allowed their own articles. Plus, it's just freaking awesome. EDIT: I did forget to mention, though, that it could use just a little bit of revision. :) --65.184.25.185 03:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yay. "it could use just a little bit of revision" - may I remind readers that this is not to be used as grounds for deletion. I'd like to add that the reason I am so strongly supporting this is that I agree, it is freaking awesome and it was the means through which I discovered esoteric languages. —EatMyShortz 04:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Actual programing language. The article is well written. Need I say more? --Hoovernj 21:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - If somebody wants to learn about this language here then let them. Its existance here doesn't hurt anyone. JesseHogan 05:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It has more value than things like HQ9+
• Delete This to me looks like original research. It was written by the author and although it isn't harming anyone it is not something anyone will find information about anywhere else (aside from the author's own website/s). It may be an interesting article and I can see why many people would like it to remain on Wikipedia but RTM - it does not belong on here. Waveydave 17:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC).
• KEEP! Funny, not usefull, but interesting...

• Comment. I'm confused by the amount of anon voting on this page, but I'm also confused as to why this is still up after 2 weeks of voting. I count 11 Delete votes, 11 Keep votes, and 9 anon or possible sock-puppet votes. Appears to be no consensus to Delete, so looks like a Keep to me. — Asbestos | Talk 13:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is it still on the deletelist then? Actually, I would also say Keep. Bernard van der Wees 22:26, 10 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. However, since User:TheoClarke found useful material to merge into a larger article and (and that merger was not opposed) and since there is no argument presented explicitly against the redirect, I am going to exercize my discretion and make this into a redirect instead. Rossami (talk) 06:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elijah Kiel

I'm not entirely sure what this is, but it appears to be a minor character from some book or TV series, or possibly the background for a roleplaying character. Radiant! 12:26, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. He's a character from a japanese anime show called Gundam Seed. If you follow the characther links from that page they all redirect to Cosmic Era list of characters. [[User:DaveT--ZayZayEM 08:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)heRed|DaveTheRed]] 22:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable minor fictious character, fancruft. Megan1967 23:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anicruft. --Bucephalus 14:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE --ZayZayEM 08:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect'. I have merged what could be gleaned from the garbled material on this page into Cosmic Era list of characters. --Theo (Talk) 19:47, 11 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 ambiguous. I count 4 clear "delete" votes and 7 "keep" votes. However, 4 of the "keep" votes have to be thrown out as either mis-votes or anonymous users. That leaves a majority to delete, but not the overwhelming concensus necessary to carry out the deletion. The decision defaults to "keep".

However, I also note that several users commented on the low quality and possible bias of the article. I concur with that assessment and will mark it for clean-up. If not improved in a reasonable amount of time, it may become appropriate to renominate the article. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Thoms Clark

Poet, but doesn't google. The article, however, is not really about her, but is a very POV criticism of her entry in the DNB. Radiant! 12:54, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The Recycling Troll 09:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Gamaliel 05:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable; not an article. —Korath (Talk) 05:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Wouldn't it be in breach of your policy of neutralism to delete it? Grounds for believing the woman's middle name is Thoms are 1) John Cairns' remembering she was at pains to correct his assumption she meant Thomson, her mother's maiden name, when it was Thoms, a different name from the other side of her family; & 2) Family Records has it as Thoms. Either source might be mistaken but each corroborates the other & reinforces the probability Thoms is correct. Either source for the Wikipedia entry is better than that cited for the middle name given in the DNB entry, her brother. That entry cites no public record source. For Wikipedia to drop its entry would be to endorse as true what, on the balance of probabilities, is false. That would be iniquitous of Wikipedia. Is my view that your deletion would be in breach of your policy correct, or not, in your view? Deletion would not only be POV but erroneous POV. Further, your entry backs up statements by quotations from the subject's letters, validating them. (Archivist)
  • Other than a single vandalism last October, all of User:212.85.7.14's previous edits have been to the article; he is its sole author. —Korath (Talk) 16:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The John Cairns Archive is a useful sourse of information **unsigned vote from 62.249.208.64. First edit.
• DELETE --ZayZayEM 08:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I found this article extremely interesting and informative and vote to keep it,Taggart.
  • User:212.162.202.226's only edit. —Korath (Talk) 09:26, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Very interesting. Keith MacGregor Second vote from 62.249.208.64.
• Keep- not famous, is notable. Bluemoose 17:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote came after the voting period is over. --Deathphoenix 20:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Removed in light of Korath's comment. --Deathphoenix 20:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The voting period is not over until the discussion is closed. See the header of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. —Korath (Talk) 20:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Author of published work is notable. The article is POV and needs a clean-up, however. --Theo (Talk) 19:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote came after the voting period is over. --Deathphoenix 20:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Removed in light of Korath's comment. --Deathphoenix 20:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • As above. —Korath (Talk) 20:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional disturbance

Despite what this article says, emotional disturbance is not a catagory (sic) of Special Education. The name might serve as a redirect to a psy article, but what is stated here is meaningless. Radiant! 12:55, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Eminently deletable - David Gerard 12:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, the term emotionally disturbed, or ED, was formerly used as a term/category within special education, although I think it was discontinued in the late 1990s. Abstain. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--ZayZayEM 08:15, 7 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 the rewritten version.

Comment: I'm afraid that I have to disagree with BM. The original version, while deletable, was not so bad that it required deletion from the edit history (as, for example, a copyvio would). The correction to make this a good article should be encouraged. Rossami (talk) 06:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enright

Neologism that doesn't google. Radiant! 12:59, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear in the English slang and colloquialisms used in the United Kingdom dictionary. HyperZonk^talk 16:51, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the nonsense that's here now, and replace it with a disambig page between Olwyn Enright, Derek Enright, D. J. Enright, and any other notable Enrights. Raven42 23:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Name Disambiguation Articles R Us Uncle G 01:40, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• It's now a name disambig, as it should be - David Gerard 12:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Again, I'll note that Uncle G should stop doing this. All he has to do is wait 5 days until the article originally submitted to VfD is deleted before he grabs the topic. It may seem clever to swoop in and change VfD-ed articles to a different topic, but it is equivalent to blanking the article during the course of a VfD, and it is not correct. --BM 23:00, 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 ambiguous. While the clear concensus is to delete the article, Marnevell made significant improvements to it at the last minute. My personal vote would still have been to delete because I don't think the subject quite meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. I also note that none of the other voters returned to the discussion to change their votes subsequent to Marnevell's changes.

I am going to make the judgment call that this is a delete but I will recuse myself if it is nominated for undeletion. Rossami (talk) 06:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ephraim Ellis

Seems to be a minor character on a TV show. Radiant! 13:09, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The article really is only about the minor character that Ephraim Ellis played on the TV show Degrassi: The Next Generation. As for Mr. Ellis himself, his entry on IMDB lists only four credits and one notable guest appearance. Zzyzx11 23:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The article isn't about Ephraim Ellis at all. It's about "Rick", a character on Degrassi: The Next Generation that isn't in the list of major characters given there. Merge to Degrassi: The Next Generation if they want it, fixing the resultant self-reference. Otherwise Delete, and let an article that is actually about Ephraim Ellis arise from the redlinks. Uncle G 01:11, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Delete. TVcruft. --Bucephalus 14:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: tvcruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete. I made the article more about the person and not his character. --Marnevell

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Rossami (talk) 06:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Entertainment technology

Circular definition. Also, the definition is too broad, as lots of technology is or can be used for entertainment. Radiant! 13:12, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I don't even see a definition in there. --InShaneee 18:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep but with qualifications. The general recommendation is that this should become a redirect to edutainment, an article which is currently much smaller than this one. And while I agree with user:TheoClarke that edutainment can be considered a neologism, it is far better known and in much wider use than this hyphenated phrase. However, that is properly a decision to be dealt with on the respective Talk pages. I will mark this with a "merge" recommendation and trust that future editor/readers will sort out the best long-term answer. Rossami (talk) 06:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Entertainment-Education

Refers the process of putting educational messages in entertainment. Sounds a bit like a dicdef, but it may have potential for expansion. Or should it be merged somewhere? No vote as yet. Radiant! 13:17, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to edutainment. --InShaneee 18:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nobody calls it "Entertainment-Education". It's either "educational entertainment" or "edutainment". — Gwalla | Talk 03:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge and Redirect to edutainment as well. A google search does reveal that it is stll called entertainment-education, but a google search just barely scratches the surface. Jaberwocky6669 21:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge any useful content--nixie 01:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have expanded this to make it more encyclopaedic although it remains stubby. Edutainment is just one of several neologisms for this topic. --Theo (Talk) 00:06, 12 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. However, depending on how the final decision concludes at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians, it may be appropriate to recreate the article either in whole or as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 07:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Beavers

This short-short stub reads "William Beavers is a Chicago Alderman." End of stub. How is notability being illustrated in this article and what makes it worthy of inclusion here on Wikipedia? Should it be kept or deleted? GRider\^talk 16:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians.
• Delete, as per my previous votes on these. Megan1967 23:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect or expand. Meelar (talk) 04:24, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not an article. Willing to reconsider if expanded. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chicago aldermen. See also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians. Android79 00:52, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - keep the redirect - David Gerard 12:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence found that he meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Rossami (talk) 06:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No eveidence of notability. Indrian 04:31, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (1) Local politicians aren't inherently notable, and there is no evidence of notability provided in the article; (2) It is marginally more than a sub-stub. It is most likely that a person arriving at this article will already know that Beavers was a Chicago alderman, and be exasperated with Wikipedia for wasting his time. In cases such as this, redlinks are superior to sub-stubs. --BM 21:13, 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. Rossami (talk) 07:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Epiadv

Webcomic. It's been around for nearly two years, but has only about 25 episodes to its name. Article combines vanity and FAQ; comic's art style combines photographic faces with simple line drawing, and seems mainly about the author itself. Suspected vanity. Radiant! 16:33, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn —Xezbeth 19:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable sporadically updated webcomic. Vanity article. — Gwalla | Talk 03:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity, not notable. Bluemoose 14:38, 11 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. Rossami (talk) 07:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Espen Harbitz

College professor that seems to be involved mostly in unrelated stuff like aerobics. Notability not established. Radiant! 08:54, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, nonnotable. --InShaneee 18:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable, article doesn't suggest otherwise. Xezbeth 19:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, molecular biologist who is "currently a frequent aerobics dancer in the gym", Bluemoose 14:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable tosh. -- Picapica 20:14, 12 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. While several people made good arguments that an article on this topic would be encyclopedic, no one chose to defend the current content. I tend to agree that a redlink will be more likely to result in a quality article than starting from the current content. Rossami (talk) 07:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: block-compress error will delay the actual deletion

[edit] European blues

Is there any call for 'category:blues groups of European origin'? And if so, what's so special about European blues as compared to, say, African blues (if any)? Certainly this should not be a list. Radiant! 17:08, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not a very useful list. Megan1967 00:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This could easily be transformed into an excellent article on the subject of blues music in Europe. Keep.--Gene_poole 04:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If someone wants to actually transform it in to an excellent article, that would be wonderful. Delete as it stands now. --Darkwind 04:21, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• The term "European blues" is actually used. (http://www.euroblues.org/). Keep - this one can happily develop - David Gerard 12:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe, but in that case the current article should still be blanked as the way it stands it will most likely develop to a list of blues groups in Europe. Radiant!
• Delete because I don't think there is anything useful to say about blues in europe. There is definitely a possibility of articles on French blues, Italian blues et al, but I don't think European blues is useful. Tuf-Kat 04:28, 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 Minor Jedi characters in Star Wars#Piell, Even. I count 3 merge, 1 keep, and 3 delete. Since the merge was already done, I will redirect this article to preserve the edit history. Deathphoenix 03:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Even Piell

Very minor character from a Star Wars film. Radiant! 18:56, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge somewhere or keep, if it's a minor character. Kappa 19:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Is every fictional character in the "Jedi Council" noteworthy enough for their own article on Wikipedia? How is notability calculated and determined? "Even Piell" turns up precisely 390 unique google hits. [1] No vote. GRider\^talk 20:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I am merging this with Minor Jedi characters in Star Wars. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone should now make this a redirect page to Minor Jedi characters in Star Wars#Piell, Even. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I have redirected it to the aforementioned article. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (preferred) or keep. I have an action figure of that guy! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 00:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The place to expand on this character is the Minor Jedi page I am linking to. I've already put him on there. This Vfd should be lifted and the page redirected to the link. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You could make an action figure of anything with the name 'Star Wars' on it and someone will buy it. Average Earthman 00:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You're correct. http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/R1_G4_figure.jpg Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then does that make him eligible for the Minor droids in Star Wars article? -- Riffsyphon1024 05:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Starcruft. --Bucephalus 14:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. I count 16 keep (13 keep + 3 merge) and 11 delete. Deathphoenix 03:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Felina Ivy

Pseudo-professor-cruft? With a mere 38 unique hits on google [2], how is this possibly encyclopedic information? Are fictitious characters in the pokémon universe immune to the Google test? GRider\^talk 17:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• No, they're not. I suppose someone will want to merge this to a list of minor characters or something, but personally I'd prefer deletion. Radiant! 18:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, We have enough of this fancruft, and it's a minor character no less. Inter 21:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Er, I'm going to have to vote Keep, as it makes no sense to single this one out and delete it. Clearly it's part of a set. Xezbeth 21:48, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it be helpful then if additional articles within that set were listed? This reads as circular reasoning to me. GRider\^talk 23:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It does if it's a test case for a whole category. But then you knew that, because in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brian Doherty you wrote:
    • No vote, but please don't add every single one of these to VfD at once. Just do a few to begin with. --Xezbeth 17:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Further reading for voters: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Machinedramon and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kaseidramon. BM's argument in the former (which mentions Pokemon) will highlight some of the difficulties present here.
    Looking at Pokémon (anime)#Other_characters it appears that this article has been broken out of a section in a larger article in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Articles_covering_subtopics, and that other, more minor, characters have been kept in the list in the main article. This isn't the same as someone just recolouring the redlinks at List of Digimon. Weak Keep. Uncle G 22:55, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
    • Interesting. Would this then imply that if there were enough granular detail about any given subject, such that it would make a main topic article too large, it would then become worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia because the subtopic overshadows the parent article? No matter if it is completely unencyclopedic? GRider\^talk 23:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written article on a subject of great interest to a substantial number of people. Another demonstration that the 'Google test' may be great at providing evidence for a keep vote, but it is absolutely useless as substantiation for a delete vote. The reason is simple: Many encyclopedic subjects are not well-represented on the web. And while it's easy to check when Google gives a false positive by providing unrelated hits, there is no easy way of checking these false negatives. Andrewa 23:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to tell me that the google test is flawed here because Pokemon characters are not well represented on the web? A search for "pokemon" and "character" gets 533 thousand hits. If this was a significant character, surely she'd get more than 38. Delete, or failing that Merge. DaveTheRed 01:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Nope, I'm trying to tell you that this character may not be well represented, but that's not why I claim the Google test has limits, nor do I claim that the Google test is flawed. It's just misapplied. No change of vote. Andrewa 01:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the google test can be misused both ways, depending on the subject. The subject matter is key, and is often overlooked by those who think it's all in the numbers. It's easy for many unencyclopedic things to get a substantial number of google hits, through self promotion, having names in common, as well as various things that exist only on the internet, hence displaying all references to a subject, rather than what is generally thought to be a mere sample from which one can extrapolate. Likewise many subjects are not well represented on the internet, mostly things that predated the internet and have not seen widespread discussion since its advent. Holding, say, minor historic figues of antiquity to the same significant google results as, say, porn stars, is ridiculous. The google test has its limits. Severe ones. And one must keep in mind not only the number of hits, but what the hits actually are. I've come across many pages that had no apparent mention of the subject I was searching for, and this must be taken into account. I will say this, however: something that turns up 0 google hits is very unlikely to be notable enough for an encyclopedia, and, is somewhat unlikely to exist. Of course, they may be exceptions to this too. My point is false positives and false negatives are both common, and anyone who thinks any Pokemon character is underrepresented on the web is delusional. My vote is below. -R. fiend 04:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Agree with some of this and think it should be discussed but not here, see Wikipedia talk:Google test#Asymmetry. But I'm afraid I think your assessment delusional borders on being a personal attack. Peace! No change of vote. Andrewa 20:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • My apologies. I didn't mean for it to be a personal attack. But I do maintain that one subject that is not underrepresented on the web in any form is Pokemon. -R. fiend 21:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Comment: IMO that's a bit too sweeping. Agree Pokemon is very well represented, but this coverage is not necessarily balanced or complete. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, minor fictious character, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 00:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably, but I guess the more likely outcome will be merge/redirect to some goddamn Pokemon page, and I can live with that. I believe we have an entry or two for Pokemon, do we not? If this was broken out of a Pokearticle already because the article got too big, well, that's the old Everyking Ashlee Simpson argument all over again, and that one doesn't wash with me. Fix it. -R. fiend 00:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pokemon fancruft, and it's not as if Wikipedia is short of Pokemon material. --Calton 02:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is the sum of all Pokemon knowledge. —RaD Man (talk) 02:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ba-dum-bum.
• Merge into an article on minor Pokemon characters, or failing that, keep. -Sean Curtin 03:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--lots of content, seems too big to merge .Meelar (talk) 04:21, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge: A whole lot of people online would refer to her only as Professor Ivy; if she's the only one in the Pokemon world, why would people spell out her full name? Still, "professor ivy" only gets 2,000-some google hits, most of which are false. I say we create a page with all the other less notable Pokemon professors, which would probably be all but Professor Oak. Of course, we'd have to trim down some of this information. And by "we" I mean other people-LtNOWIS 05:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Elm and Birch are also very notable in their own right... kelvSYC 02:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable information. ComCat 08:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pokecruft. --Bucephalus 14:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I hate the Pokémon series, but this is a notable character in what is sadly a large universe. 129.177.61.124 15:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-noteable fancruft. Martg76 19:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please! --Neigel von Teighen 21:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In the Pokémon universe, Ivy is a very significant character (albeit unique to the anime), as her introduction pretty much starts the second season of Pokémon (and the premise of the GS Ball saga). kelvSYC 02:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• It hurts to say this, but keep. (Passes the Pokemon Comparative Notability Test!) - David Gerard 13:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a page about all of the Pokémon researchers. While she might not deserve a page of her own, she still is important enough to merit reference of some kind. Ok, perhaps all that information on Ivy is not absolutely necessary, so one could trim her entry a bit while merging it, too. Sinistro 00:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't care for this stuff at all, but clearly there are people who care about this, and the article is reasonably well done. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Come on now, this is a good article!! -- unsigned vote by 64.172.25.87, whose first edit this vote was.
• Keep The Recycling Troll 09:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pokecruft. —Korath (Talk) 05:51, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable character in notable fictional universe. Gamaliel 16:17, 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 keep. Deathphoenix 03:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester

Less common spelling, current content just a POV quote.Squidwina 19:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV essay/rant. Megan1967 00:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Since there is no Tax protester article, I would think this should be Renamed and cleaned up. Gazpacho 00:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Having contributed this article (which I recognize certainly needs development), I feel compelled to defend it. There is such a creature as a 'tax protestor,' a term which is used by the IRS, by courts, and by tax professors and practitioners. W/respect to the POV, it is frankly very hard to write about people who think that the Sixteenth Amendment is invalid because Ohio was technically not a state until 1953, or that the word 'income' could not conceivably include wages, without sounding judgmental. Indeed, some tax protestors have become quite legendary for taking multiple appeals to the Supreme Court on various theories (and invariably getting shot down). I borrowed the section (with permission of the author, as noted) because it was succinct, and I saw no point in reinventing the wheel. In any event, I contend that the topic, however set forth, is certainly encylopedic.--BD2412 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • PS - sorry about the spelling, they get us into the '-or' habit in law school.
• Comment. This page has now been substantially expanded since the initial votes for deletion. --BD2412 22:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment.

1. 'If tax protestor' is a US legal term as opposed to 'tax protester' as a general term for a person in any country not paying their taxes and whatnot, I think there should be separate articles for the two.
2. I think the quoted material should not be there unless it is impossible to provide a NPOV explanation of the legal term, as the author's opinion expressed in the quote doesn't seem to add any insight into the factual content and may cause unnecessary offence to some people. Squidwina 10:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment.

This page needs to be extensively reworked.

1. Let's start with the aspects of this topic that are the least controversial: when the phrase first appeared in print; to whom, by name, it referred; how it has expanded over time; whether or not it is a legal term, and if so, where defined; a list of specific people who self-identify as "tax protestors"
2. A list of the specific arguments, with citations to court cases for those that have been tested - this is where the article will become huge, particularly if both sides of every argument are included
3. The phrase "disagree with the tax laws" is ambiguous: does it mean someone who wants the law to be changed, or someone who disagrees with someone else about what the law is?
4. Is it possible to draw a distinct line between "such a creature" and people who are confused by the tax code and have genuine doubts and unanswered questions? In other words, is "tax protestor" a distinct population?
5. Reference to "Holocaust deniers" is too far afield and merely shows the author's bias. (No one self-identifies as a Holocaust denier, it is entirely a slur-word.) It might be appropriate in a page about the psychology of people who question mainstream beliefs about points of law and history, but there the topic should be fully explored.
6. It is easy for a schooled lawyer to ridicule the rest of us, but tell me this: if the personal income tax is an excise (as the corporate income tax is), and if an excise is a tax imposed on the happening of an event, then what's the event?

--Rodschmidt 4:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. In any event, I think we are beyond arguing whether this article should exist, and into arguing what it should say. I will note that there is no legal distinction between the '-er' or '-or' spellings; I've seen them used about equally in legal texts/documents, and I'll self-correct to the more common usage. I would clarify that 'tax protesters,' as the IRS defines the term, do not want to change the law b/c they believe the law as written has no effect. It is hard to draw a line between the stubborn and the merely confused, as the term applies to the belief, not the reason for it. Also, sorry if I seemed to be ridiculing anyone, that was not my intent - I'm really not a 'schooled lawyer' yet - I'm still just a law student until May. --BD2412 18:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Probably could use a little cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. May need cleanup, but it's a valid topic. — Gwalla | Talk 03:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional keep so long as it's cleaned up. --Spinboy 21:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment.

1. I believe the term "tax protestor" first applied to people who signed 1040's "under protest" (to reserve their right to disclaim the signature in case it turned out they weren't required by law to sign). Parenthetically, when Form SS-5 (Application for Social Security Number) came out in 1937, many people signed it "under protest" according to the New York Times. The people listed in the first paragraph wouldn't have been called tax protestors, they would have been called rebels, revolutionaries or traitors.
2. I believe the "movement" started around the 1950's, with Arthur Porth and a few others. See http://www.anti-irs.com/newsletters/1997/oct97.html
3. What would be proper primary source materials? The court cites and IRS publications you referred to? What else?
4. They tend to call themselves the "freedom movement," "patriot movement" or "tax honesty movement."
5. Mr. BD, please contact me at rod underscore schmidt at hotmail

--Rodschmidt 13:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Note. Renamed to the more common spelling, Tax protester. --BD2412 02:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Renamed here too, to avoid double-redirect.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. However, pending the final outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians, it may become appropriate to recreate this article either in full or as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 07:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toni Preckwinkle

((PERSONS NAME)) is a ((JOB TITLE)). Does this meet the requirements for speedy deletion, or are these the kind of article contributions Wikipedia should encourage? GRider\^talk 19:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The option of merging of all these articles is being discussed in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians.
• Keep. An alderman for a city of 3.9 million people is in IMO. Minimal but adequate stub. If it subsequently becomes a redirect to a consolidated article, that doesn't require VfD. Just do it. Andrewa 23:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An alderman in a city of 3.9 million, one of a group of 50. Not good enough. --Calton 02:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per my previous votes on these aldermen. Megan1967 00:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (and redirect) into the greater List of Chicago Aldermen. No reason to delete, no reason to keep. —RaD Man (talk) 02:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 04:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• With this minimal content, merge and redirect. Keep if expanded. Meelar (talk) 04:20, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already on the list--nixie 05:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not an article. Willing to reconsider if expanded. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an article. ComCat 09:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I note that the merge and redir votes are not being counted at all in the tally box. The result of this is IMO to give a misleading view. At present IMO there is no consensus to delete, as four votes (mine to keep and three to merge) would keep the entry, as opposed to six who would delete it. This is not a terribly important article, the mechanism is probably more important. Food for thought? No change of vote. Andrewa 20:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chicago aldermen. See also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians. Android79 00:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence presented that this person meets the recommended Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies. Rossami (talk) 06:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as yet another one of those contentless non-articles regarding Chicago aldermen. It's just a sentence. - Lucky 6.9 22:52, 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 ambiguous.

I count 9 clear "delete" votes, 3 clear "keep" votes and 3 clear "merge" votes. The opinion of the nominator is, in this case, ambigous. While there is a clear majority to delete, there is not the overwhelming concensus necessary to carry out deletion. The decision defaults to keep for now. Rossami (talk) 07:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Birch

More pseudo-professor-cruft? Are stubs regarding non-existent and fictitious professors inherently encyclopedic? With 280 unique google hits [3] what makes this "person" notable? Does Wikipedia hold a biased and lower standard for inclusion of Pokémon professors than they would for actual professors of note in the real world? Discuss. GRider\^talk

• Delete, minor fictious character, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 01:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a page on Pokemon characters. -Sean Curtin 03:54, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• No reason not to merge. Meelar (talk)
  • Plenty of reasons not to merge. The existence of Professor Birch, director of Deakin University’s Corporate Citizenship Research Unit, for example. Or Professor Leann Birch, of Pennsylvania State University. Average Earthman 11:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, and delete. Average Earthman 17:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable info. ComCat 09:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pokecruft. --Bucephalus 14:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-noteable fancruft. Martg76 19:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Birch is a very notable character in the Pokémon universe, as, like Oak, Elm, and Ivy, the character sets up the premise of most of AG. kelvSYC 17:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a page about Pokémon professors. Sinistro 00:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep c.f. Professor Oak. This page can presumeably be expanded.--ZayZayEM 12:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable fancruft. Indrian 04:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The Recycling Troll 09:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More pokemon fancruft. Maybe merbe a sentence or two somewhere. This pokemon crap needs serious cleaning up. -R. fiend 17:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pokecruft. —Korath (Talk) 05:48, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 22:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Oak

Is it absurdly ridiculous that we have an article about the grandson of a Pokémon professor, or is this encyclopedic information which makes Wikipedia a more valuable resource? Gary Oak +pokemon returns 313 google hits [5] while his grandfather, Professor Oak returns over 16,500 in contrast. [6] Should this article remain or be deleted? GRider\^talk 00:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, minor fictious character, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 01:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Gary is a major character in the cartoon version of Pokemon. He is the arch-rival of Ash (the main character). See Template:Anime characters. Carrp | Talk 01:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Would justifying the existence of an article by referring to a Wikipedia template (Template:Anime characters) be an exercise in circular reasoning? Why or why not? GRider\^talk 18:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that would circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be if I justified the Gary Oak article by pointing out the fact that he has an article on Wikipedia. However, what I actually did was to show that Gary is one of the main Pokemon characters. He is the main character's arch-rival and is prominently featured in many plots. There's plenty of Pokecruft on Wikipedia, but Gary isn't part ot it. Carrp | Talk 15:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Gary + Pokémon" gets over 40,000 Google hits; it seems that the character is rarely referred to by his full name, and anyone anal enough to spell out his full name when using it would likely also remember to put the accent over the e in "Pokémon". -Sean Curtin 04:17, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid search phrase. "Greg +Pokémon" gets over 15,000 Google hits [7]. For the record, I am not a character in the Pokémon world. Pulling a random name from a hat, "Dave +Pokémon" receives over 45,000 Google hits; [8]. GRider\^talk 18:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable information. ComCat 09:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Has no relevence whatsoever separate from the Pokemon series (i.e. isn't a wider cultural figure in the way that, say, Darth Vader or Hannibal Lecter are). Personally, I'd rather redirect to Oregon white oak, which is also known as the Garry oak and will be of longer significance. Average Earthman 11:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm undecided about this, but this isn't some random character, it's the main antagonist in the series so basically every other character except Ash Ketchum is less notable than him and would have to go if he went. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 08:50, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Gary Oak is the nemesis of the main character in the Pokemon anime series, and has been in it for some 9 years now, has 198,000 google hits. To be replaced with an article about an obscure type of tree? Don't make me laugh. Oregon white oak should not have an article to itself anyway. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of trees. Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep - Gary is one of the core (semi)regular characters in Pokémon, both at the start and end of the series. Furthermore, he is very important in terms of the story. kelvSYC 17:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - the character is more important to the series than the aformentioned grandfather. Not that I watch Pokeman... --BD2412 20:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the character has had an important role in the series for a long time and is also represented in some of the franchise's video games as the game's main rival.Sinistro 00:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - give a disambiguation line at the top for the Oregon White Oak. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have trees in it? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Googling for "Gary Oak" + pokémon gets over 7,000 hits. Bart133 (t) 01:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable fancruft. Just becasue something that is popular among one segment of the population of the world and can therefore show many google hits does not make it notable. In fact, I would imagine that 7,000 hits is a very low total for a pokemon topic. Indrian 04:36, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's likely because his last name is rarely used. Since "Gary" is a common name, a search for "Gary" + pokemon will result in too many unrelated hits. Carrp | Talk 12:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I cannot believe this. -- unsigned comment by 64.172.25.87, whose second edit this vote is.
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 'Strong keepp. I do not watch Pokemon but I know that this person is very important! 67.110.225.100 17:20, 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 no consensus, so keep.

• I count 3 keep and 4 delete.
• I did not count the keep vote by User:BigHonky as the user has only contributed to this VfD.
• 2-3 of the delete votes are based on this town being a planned town; however, I am still counting them, hence the "no consensus" result.

--Deathphoenix 22:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Las Colinas

No vote as of yet. Article says this is a planned development, but the first external link goes nowhere, and the second doesn't support the article. Reads like an advertisement, but not really sure what to make of it. Android79 02:07, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not Property.com. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 04:15, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• errr.... Las Colinas is a suburb of Los Angeles. At the very least, if this is going to exist, it needs to be behind a disambiguation page. (del, i think) Avriette 13:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm frankly not thrilled that every town is counted notable, but this isn't even a town. It doesn't even EXIST yet. Nonnotable to the point of absurdity. --InShaneee 18:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Come back when it exists. Radiant! 11:59, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Las Colinas does exist. I live there. :-) I have edited the page to say that it is a developed area versus a planned development, although I think the original author meant "planned development" not in the sense of future planning, but in the sense of there is a master plan for the whole development, like "planned community". It is a familiar name to anyone in the DFW Metroplex. I would agree with Avriette that it might need to be behind a disambiguation page. I will attempt to find some more useful info to add as well. Dennypayne 05:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, quite notable. "Planned" in the sense of having been centrally planned, rather than having grown organically (quite unusual for Texas, I might add). Includes HQs of quite a few corporations. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on miscomprehension of the sense of the word "planned" here. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Change vote to Keep given the rewrite and my misunderstanding of the word "planned." Sorry for that, but I didn't have much to go on! :o) Android79 13:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,I am kind of new to Wikipedia, however my uncle was one of the people behind the Las Colinas development when he worked for Faison back in the 60-70's, I would like to update the info on this page. I feel that Las Colinas was a huge failure becuase of the economic situation of the time, yet it was a tremendous idea as well. Please remember too that #1 I live in the zip code of Las Colinas (75039) and Exxon is headquartered here as well [unsigned comment from User:BigHonky ]
  • Go for it! Just remember to maintain NPOV when writing. If Las Colinas is regarded as a failure by many (and you can cite the sources to back it up), then it probably belongs in the article. Android79 03:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. While there was a majority decision to delete the current version, there was a promise to improve the article which influenced subsequent votes. I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one a keep for now and mark it with a "cleanup" tag. If not substantially improved in a reasonable amount of time, it may become appropriate to renominate the article for deletion. (The pagemove to fix the spelling error would also be a good idea.) Rossami (talk) 07:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The_Religion_of_India:_The_Sociology_of_Hinduism_and_Budhism_(book)

Delete Merge and redirect - This text is already a subsection on this: Maximilian_Weber#The_Religion_of_India:_The_Sociology_of_Hinduism_and_Buddhism.≈ jossi ≈ 01:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no redirect. I can't imagine anyone typing out the full name of that book. Megan1967 04:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Especially since it is misspelled. Buddhism. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:53, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no redirect, as per Megan1967 and Jmabel. However, perhaps merge some info. I may get around to it depending on time and motivation today. If someone else does it first, all the better. Interestingly, no merge is needed; it seems that this article is entirely extracted (with new, disimproved headings!) from the existing article. HyperZonk^talk 16:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Move and keep. This is fairly well written and much longer then a stub. It is a subarticle from Max Weber, which is fairly long (and Featured, btw), so this article was created for eventuall expantion of the Max Weber article, for the purpose of providing more information to the reader interested in this area of Weber research - a purpose it already does well, considering additional information available in this subarticle (like the Hinduism link/see also template). Of course, if the title is mispelled, I will move it to a proper name later when I can login from my normal comp. Update: yes, that was me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Per Piotrus, no problem keeping (at corrected name) if he promises to expand. -- Jmabel | Talk

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