Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 4

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apocalyptic robot crew

Band vanity. If they could tell us half as much about actual evidence of notability as they do about their cutesy habits of changing band names and stage names every time they're asked, then maybe they'd merit an article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Thryduulf 01:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. No reference in AMG, 1 Google hit, no claim to notability in the article. JoaoRicardo 01:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bandity. Bart133 (t) 01:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit, band vanity. Megan1967 02:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, classic high school band vanity. Wyss 23:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 16:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Axelrodian education

Looks to be either copyvio or original research. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 02:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 02:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - smells like both. No google hits and not coherent enough for me to bother trying to look elsewhere. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Incoherant. Delete. humblefool® 03:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• O.R. Delete--ZayZayEM 06:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this has got to be some sort of a joke about bad academic writing, else it's the most pathetic sort of vanity essay by a towering bore. This isn't a personal attack on the author, just a reaction to the article's content- lots of otherwise cool people are capable of writing this badly. Wyss 23:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Incoherent essay and/or parody. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Author of this just dumped basically same text to Axelrodian pedagogy, which I made to redirect to this one. jni 20:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. jni 15:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meat helmet

Complete nonsense. --L. Pistachio 02:03, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Joke by anon, with no contributions before today and probably none that will survive either VfD or reversion. Andrewa 02:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This person's contributions look like those of a well-intentioned newbie. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:37, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should have just been speedy-deleted. Binadot
• Delete, although sadly this is not the first time I have heard of meat-based headwear. — Ливай | ☺ 03:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable but not quite patent nonsense. Meat helmets are a type of armour from the Kingdom of Loathing RPG. There's also meat pants and a meat cowboy hat which I am not making up! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as vandalism (bad-faith prank). Wyss 23:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete. Yuckfoo 01:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, KoL fancruft. Wait, no, it's not! Grue 10:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The anon responsible for this is wearing his own meat hat while chuckling madly at his perceived cleverness at having besiged Our Wiki. For shame, Meaty One. Next time, try tinfoil. Works better. Smells better, too. :^) - Lucky 6.9 02:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Little more than a sub-stub really AmosWolfe 02:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I would have thought the world for meathelment was crud. Delete. Lacrimosus 08:16, 8 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. Joyous 02:24, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United Software Association

Yet another warez group. Big deal. Google search for "United Software Association" only garners 127 hits. Ho hum. See also: The Humble Guys. —RaD Man (talk) 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep stop wasting our time with sarcastic VfD's RaD Man ... I think we get the point.  ALKIVAR™ 04:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup. Megan1967 06:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep (?), I don't really know anything about warez. JuntungWu 16:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• C'mon, Rad Man. Keep. They weren't as big as The Humble Guys in their day, but I certainly remember them. Katefan0 17:57, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Capitalistroadster 06:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and I must admit, this one surprises me too, RadMan, although we're all entitled to be bored to the point of VfD by stories of warez scammers. Wyss 23:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Yuckfoo 01:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Legends in their own minds, I'm sure. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 18:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic, possibly vanity. Martg76 13:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have an article on warez. A self-important minor criminal organization, which based on the Google hits, isn't significant enough for an article separate from the main warez article. I don't think we should be in a big rush to give anti-social/criminal groups and individuals that crave attention what they want. --BM 17:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, I think your reasoning is flawed. Wikipedia is not a group of morality police. If a group, however nefarious, is encyclopedic, it should be included. According to your logic, should we also not have an entry for Mafia or Charles Manson? Katefan0 18:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • You've misunderstood me, or more probably, I didn't express myself well. My point is that the normal notability bar would rule out this article, anyway, and that we shouldn't be in any big rush to lower it; on the contrary, for the reasons stated, we should err on the side of caution. Clearly there are notable bad guys and we need to have them in the encyclopedia. We just shouldn't be bending over backwards to share the grandiose view that petty delinquents like the United Software Association have of themselves just because they have a website and troll Internet forums. --BM 20:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • United Software Association ceased to exist beyond the 1990s. Are you sure you read the article? I'd just hate to believe you were casting a vote of delete out of ignorance. —RaD Man (talk) 20:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I did. As I keep saying; this group isn't notable, and we shouldn't be in any big rush to lower our standards for groups like this. If you don't agree, then you shouldn't have nominated the article. Or are you disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? --BM 21:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Good. Just making sure you accurately understood why it wasn't notable. The USA no longer exists; therefore they cannot, as you put, "have a website and troll Internet forums". —RaD Man (talk) 21:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • However, that is an accurate characterization of many warez and trolling groups, and I am trying to make a general point. Sorry to have confused you. --BM 22:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Is it? Which warez group(s) specifically does your "accurate" over generalization apply to? Curious. —RaD Man (talk) 22:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athalia Bromton

Unable to confirm article, this website mentions a Vanity Fair article. - RoyBoy [∞] 03:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Tragic, but doesn't seem to be notable. Gamaliel 03:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. LizardWizard 04:04, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there an article on kids who kill on Wikipedia? - RoyBoy [∞] 04:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crime database. JoaoRicardo 05:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - fails Google test (3 hits, 1 unrelated), Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 06:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, murder most foul is not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 23:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane V8

Article is unsubstantiated, shavings from the automotive rumor mill.

69.212.36.88 04:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep for now - will be a notable engine and production looks good. --SFoskett 04:16, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I heard a rumor that this program has been cancelled. 69.212.36.88 04:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a news source. JoaoRicardo 05:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until the engine actually exists. RickK 05:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Rumors are not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Is there a "wikigossip" somewhere? :-) 136.2.1.101 19:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If there is no reliable source to defend this, then it does not belong in an encylopedia. Cabhan 20:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: there is evidence that the Hurricane has indeed been cancelled. See www.blueovalnews.com. 69.212.34.33 19:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the vapor motor 'till at least 2010. Wyss 23:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency Exit (band)

Non-notable band. Apparently a high school band based in high school. Here is their history as recorded on their website:

Late in the year 2000, guitarist Joe Bitton and drummer Ben Roberts, Had the idea at the end of their 5th grade year to start a rock band. Although they didn't know how to do this, they had the ambition of an adult. Late in the year of 2001, Joe got his first guitar, and cherished it for months later. The first time he played it, he strummed every string and created a disastrous sound. Ben and Joe soon realized that even with Joe's ability to play the James Bond theme, there was something missing. Early 2002 singer Raffi Sweet joined the band and Bassist Andy Hughes joined as a band manager. Andy manly sat in the corner and said stuff like, "awesome" or laughed. After the band bombed their first gig at a party, they realized that their was still something missing from them. To solve this, Andy became a bassist. One year later the band got their first good gig, which was a party in the back of Joe's house with a crowd of maybe 40 people. Although they later would be playing for crowds of 500 people, they still look back at this as their best gig.Soon after, Emergency Exit went to Working Man Studios to put together a few tracks for a demo. They then gave the demo away in school, and people loved it. But as time went on they realized how amateur it was.A few months later, the band known as Blackstone, organized a concert called Stone-Fest. The concert was a great night with about a 100 person crowd. The band played for 4 hours and put on an amazing show.Within the years later various gigs were taken and turned down until 2004.

Urge that this be deleted as non-notable. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Apparently there was another band by this name in the 1960s. See this. JoaoRicardo 05:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense.--Centauri 06:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all non-notable vanity articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Please do not delete. Quoted from the deletion page, "Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." I posted this, and I am not affiliated with the band at all. I feel that this page deserves to be here.
  • Above vote was by User:141.154.215.175. --Idont Havaname 23:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but read on. Sorry, but this band isn't notable enough for inclusion, no one is likely to research it beyond your immediate circle of friends and the article is totally unencyclopedic. I'm not trying to be mean, so please don't take offense. Here's a great way to not only keep it but to give it more exposure: Consider moving the info to a new user page. As you contribute more, the info on the band will be more likely to be seen by those wishing to contact you. - Lucky 6.9 22:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity.
  • Above vote was by me! --Idont Havaname 23:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 23:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• please delete this. Yuckfoo 01:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 16:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. This has been done. Joyous 02:28, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Letter writing

Here's the scoop. I tried to get user Richardr443 to wikify this article because it does not fit the Wikipedia guidelines. it's a how to article. He kept removing the tag and then finally he vandalized all of my pages with a wikify tag when it isn't warranted. And then I suggested that it be transwikied to Wikibooks. I moved the article over to Wikibooks myself. And I put a speedy delete tag on it. And now, he's logging on with the IP of 24.9.112.127 and doing the same thing...removed the moved to Wikibooks tag and vandalized my pages again and he removed the speedy delete tag. Could we just delete this article from Wikipedia please? And if you go there, please re-add the vfd tag since I'm pretty sure he'll have it removed by the time. it's been moved to Wikibooks (link is here). Anyway, please remove this article and put me out of my misery. :-) it does NOT belong on Wikipedia. --Woohookitty 05:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Good call, this does belong on Wikibooks, delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we don't do how-to articles. Rhobite 17:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Neigel von Teighen 17:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If a friendly sysop pops by, this is probably a speedy delete candidate. If you want to delete it, feel free. I did not use the speedy delete tag because it kept getting removed. But since it's been moved to Wikibooks already... --Woohookitty 18:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's transwiki'd, but I think it's helpful to build consensus on VfD in cases like this one. Rhobite 20:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This thing contains a lot of relevant information that isn't in Letter, for example the parts of a letter. No vote, but it's a pity the wikify tag didn't go down too well... replacing "should" with "it is recommended that" would go a long way. Kappa 20:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you check the talk page, I tried to be helpful. It has been transwiki'ed, so I think this can be deleted now. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-4 20:25 Z
  • You forgot to copy over the page history. Now that's done, the transwiki process is complete. Reminder: Because the transwiki process does not destroy content or history, it does not have to be discussed here (though many controversial moves end up here). Rossami (talk) 22:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Understood. This definitely qualified as controversial. And thank you for the tip. --Woohookitty 22:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Richardr443 recreated the article verbatim after it was deleted. How do we put a stop to this? This is ridiculous! Is there any way of preventing him from recreating this article? I wish we could just throw a wikify tag on it but I tried that and he removed the tag and then undid all of the formatting I had tried to apply to the article. --Woohookitty 01:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I didn't get a chance to have a say about my article-- You deleted it too fast. Any way, the word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and to say that any article that is actually useful has to be moved to an obscure part of another site is strange. I searched for my article on Wikibooks using the query Letter Writing, and didn't even get a match. It must have been put in an obscure place (I didn't even hear of Wikibooks before Woohookitty told me anyway). In any case, useful articles make Wikipedia more interesting and individual articles more distinct from one another. The greatest strength of Wikipedia is that people can find almost anything they want to know by typing it into the search box. Don't deny anyone the right to find what they want to know!-- Richard

I have turned the page into a redirect to the wikibooks article for now. This isn't ideal but at least it redirects any users working on it to its new location. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 02:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Francs. Richard, the article is at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Transwiki:Letter_writing It is under Transwiki:Letter_writing because that's where articles go when they are transwikied. Eventually it will be found under Letter writing just like it would be on Wikipedia. If you hadn't heard of Wikibooks, than I suggest that you look around the world of Wiki more. Thank you. --Woohookitty 02:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Richard what was your objection to the original wikify tag? Wikipedia doesn't do "how-to" information, at least in the form "you should do X", so your article had to be edited to fit in. Kappa 02:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki Omar Filini 07:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Megan1967 04:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:31, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electrocom

No Google hits for Electrocom +Videlectrix. RickK 06:01, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Homestar Runner characters, I'd say, since Videlectrix redirects there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Homestar Runner characters, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE Do not merge, do not redirect. It is complete and utter nonsense! Even the Homestar Runner Wiki has never heard of it. -- Cyrius|✎
• Delete the cruft. Wyss 23:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not cruft. Misinformation. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, misleading cruft, then :) Wyss 00:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Cruft and/or misinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this visitation from Miss Information. Edeans 03:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 4 merge, 5 delete. I'm going to move it to a subpage of Talk:Woman. dbenbenn | talk 17:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woman in 1911 Brittanica

Brittanica article, highly dated and POV, nothing has been done to it since it was initially uploaded in January, bad title. RickK 06:10, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Dated historical info can be useful, maybe just move? Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant info woman, especially to historical roles, and delete. I have also seen original EB1911 articles moved to WP article's talk page so that any relevant information can be later merged with the article - 10:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Woman, no redirect. Megan1967 01:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above; also, might be interesting for the article Woman to provide an external link to Lovetoknow's online version of this. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:03, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a datadump for patronizing, century-old sexist drek and who wants to plow through this for twenty-five useful words of helpful, unduplicated content for a merge? Wyss 23:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Yuckfoo 01:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 16:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merging wouldn't be worth the trouble. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article seems to be nothing more than an incomplete scan of a very dated Brittanica article with no other context. Edeans 03:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Woman or Keep. -CunningLinguist 23:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 18:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How Shall We Know Christ at His Coming?

• Dear Sir/Madam,

There is an article at Wikipedia named Max Heindel (1865-1919) which I have expanded with entries (new articles) and related descriptions of this author's twenty three books (all entirely available online and all edited in almost every languages in the world). The book "How Shall We Know Christ at His Coming?" is one of these 23 books. It's title and official description is not to be taken as religious confrontation of any sort or to anyones' faith or beliefs - it is only the description of the book written in 1918.

In Wikipedia there are also other articles of books by other authors, one of my favorites is The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850).

I think if we look "Wikipedia" as an Encyclopedia we should be proud to present the description (even if small) of all those books, specialy those written much before our modern electronic days.

Thank you --GalaazV 04:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Even if these weren't or aren't copyright violations, they're advertising. That's the reason most copyvios aren't worth keeping even if legal permission was granted to use the text; it wasn't written to be an objective description, it was usually written to be a soapbox, a personal essay, promotional copy -- and yeah, that's all these "official" descriptions are. Let me quote a few choice bits from the almost 25 descriptions GalaazV posted verbatim: "This is the heart of the Western Wisdom Teaching pertaining to Health and Healing." "This volume will be of great value to students who are engaged in healing or nursing, whether they are attached to the orthodox medical school or to the nature-cure school." "No astrological student can afford to be without it." "The library of every astrology student should contain a copy of this essential reference book." The comparison with The Scarlet Letter is laughable, because that article is not written solely by those who believe in the book and are trying to promote it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the sentences you have put here are outside their context and are from different books according to the theme of each book (Health, Astrology, Vegetarianism, ...) written by this author. Have you read any of them in order to know if those sentences are according or not with the contents of the books?

In my point of view the descriptions are reasonable and give a brief idea of each book contents. However, each description may be expanded by users who have already read each related book (one of the major things of Wikipedia is that anyone of us may give a responsible contribution to the articles).

Nevertheless, I think we have no right to discourage the effort made by any user, even if his/her work may seem incipient; neither to discourage any knowledge produced (which belongs to all mankind) only because it is not according to our own points of view.

Last, I made no comparison: it is true that The Scarlet Letter is one of my favourites in North-American Literature. I have only stated it in order to show that there are books here presented from authors of the XIX and XX centuries.

--GalaazV 06:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GalaazV, please read Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You seem to think that anyone who shows up at Wikipedia automatically has the right to post anything they want to, regardless of how clearly it violates policy, and that "we" "have no right to discourage the effort made by any user". What effort? You posted those 23 descriptions, each copied verbatim from a single webpage, in the space of just over three hours. That comes to about 7.82 minutes per copy/paste, not exactly a tremendous investment of effort. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, calling the mention of The Scarlet Letter laughable isn't very friendly to Galaaz. Remember not to bite newcomers. He was just trying to justify the article with civil discussion and reasoning, which should never be discouraged. It's far better to have discussion than a bunch of unreasoned keep votes. That said, the article is a copyvio, or an ad and as such cannot stay here, (Delete). I would however be happy to keep a proper write up. Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep, because I am interested in nature-cure. If this must be deleted, please put the list and links somewhere else: I will do some wikireading to suggest a place. Nature-cure was a significant movement that many people in increasing numbers find helps them. Don't be xenophobic, seems like a good rule of thumb. -- unsigned vote by 67.80.8.96.

I guess you are right MacGyverMagic and I think I tried to justify it with words like "discourage" which now clearly sounds to me as an accusation I was making; which I do not intend to be since as you said I made copy of a webpage descriptions, although being at the time my thought that it would be good simple descriptions in order to present this author's work. I will re-write all the articles related to the books the best my english may afford, with my own words, including this one if not deleted. Thank you for your attention and sorry for this worry --GalaazV 17:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Jayjg is your "delete" for the current copyvio version, or also for any rewritten article on this topic? Kappa 20:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Non copyvio descriptions of this book would be better included in an article on the author. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten in a reasonably NPOV way. Kappa 20:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First there is the copyvio aspect, and I don't see a rewrite in progress. But second, even if there were a rewrite, and it was NPOV, and not original research or a personal essay, puffery, etc, I don't see the need for a separate article for each of the books of Max Heindel. He is marginally notable, but an article on him, plus an additional article on each of his books, seems over-the-top to me. --BM 22:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV advertisement, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 01:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not do any rewriting since I was expecting for the outcame of the voting. But I appreciate the input of BM and so I'll give up the article for each book, instead I'll just keep the names and ISBN Number of each book at the main article and at the front of each book the external link "www" to a direct reading of the online book. However, I would like to rewrite the article, NPOV, of the main book of Max Heindel (1865-1919, founder of the Rosicrucian Fellowship) titled The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception since in the field of Mysticism and the Occult it is a worldwide reference book as the main book The Secret Doctrine of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891, founder of Theosophical Society) and of main works of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925, founder of Anthroposophical Society). Is it fine this way? Please may you Delete all the articles I have created for the books? I apologize for all annoyance I've caused; thank you for your comments and if I may be of any help please do not hesitate to contact me. --GalaazV 18:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • That seems like a reasonable solution to me. And don't apologize. It isn't at all obvious to someone new (or even agreed amongst different editors) as to what is the right level of detail on a topic in the Wikipedia and how to structure a topic into articles. --BM 00:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spinboy 00:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless it can be shown that this book (or its author) is noteable. Martg76 13:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fatima Brescia

This article was originally in Portuguese. I translated it, but I don't think it's worth keeping. It's about a girl who left a poor neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro for a better one. I've never heard of her. It may be a joke. JoaoRicardo 06:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Google yields 11 hits on this person. Inter 07:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Idont Havaname 23:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - fails Google Test (7 hits), possible hoax. Megan1967 01:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article provides no evidence this isn't either a hoax or vanity. Wyss 23:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be for real (jokes are usually more ill-spirited) but I can't tell. The article has no references and I can't find anything. I checked the Portuguese Wikipedia but there's no Fatima Brescia there. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smell the power

Non-notable website. Can't get an Alexa ranking. RickK 06:22, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Google thinks that nothing links there, either. 700-odd hits for the phrase "smell the power", but most are unrelated; the website in question clocks in at #4. Delete. -Sean Curtin 06:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Inter 07:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 13:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ashibaka tlk 21:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it and categorize it to Non-notable websites Faethon2 22:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Faethon2, please stop suggesting articles be placed in categories that don't exist. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 03:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advertisement. Megan1967 01:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, smell the ad. Wyss 23:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I can smell the power......no, wait, that's my socks. humblefool® 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. —Stormie 08:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can smell spam. Or maybe hoax. Edeans 03:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hennie de Bruin

Wikipedia is not an obituary. Hate to be Callous, but this name proved to common to find out any notability of this character via Google, so I'm guessing its an "in memory" contribution. Sweet, but not encyclopedic.--ZayZayEM 06:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm sorry he's dead, but Wikipedia isn't a memorial. Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As Macgyver said. Average Earthman 13:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as memorial. Wyss 23:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 12 delete, 5 redirect, 3 keep. dbenbenn | talk 18:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pantsu

Not encyclopedic or notable, but I'll just let the article speak for itself:

A Japanese word for underwear, this object of sexual desire is worshipped by many in the Half-Life 2 modification community, as well as various anime/game IRC channels.

silsor 07:00, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 07:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to undergarment or something similar. It's somewhat well known as a word referring to underwear, although the half-life 2 reference doesn't seem notable. Yelyos 07:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, May aswell make a redirect too. Inter 07:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to undergarment (although I'm tempted to say redirect to Chobits) --L33tminion | (talk) 00:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, dictionary definition. Megan1967 01:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's encyclopedic in that it explains something that you and I didn't know before. It's notable to those who are familiar with the culture in which it was created. If this goes, then delete Didgeridoo, too. Unless someone has a solid place to merge it to (maybe one of the things it links to, more likely one of the anime/hentai refs, because it's even more out of place in undergarment than it is floating on its own), it might as well stay where it is. Blair P. Houghton 02:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Speak for yourself. :p But, okay, seriously... the difference is that didgeridoo is an encyclopedia article, whereas pantsu is a dictdef. And it's not even an English dictdef, although it is based on a loanword. Furthermore, it's not a dictdef which could be expanded into an encyclopedia article without duplicating undergarments. I'm not convinced it even warrants a redirect, but I suppose redirects are cheap... Shimeru 05:22, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's marked as a stub, and grows about as often as anything else on my watchlist. I see no reason not to give it a chance. Again, its relationship to undergarments exists only because it's an undergarment; in this case, however, the usuage is unique to a certain subculture, and therefore more about their referent than the mundane object being so repurposed. Blair P. Houghton 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unique? How, exactly? And why doesn't the article say so? I submit that the supposed usage is not noteworthy or encyclopedic. The Japanese usage could be — but not in English. (And the Japanese article would essentially duplicate, in translation, undergarments. And perhaps bits of some fetish article.) Furthermore, the English usage isn't something that can result in the article growing until (and unless) the usage itself broadens. If it's sufficiently noteworthy within the Halflife 2 "subculture," then it might rate a mention in Halflife 2, yes. A separate article? I don't see any indication that it's widespread enough or that the subject is deep enough to warrant it. And since I didn't say so outright before: Delete Shimeru 10:40, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

There are only 148 results when one searches for Pantsu and "Half life" in Google [1] suggesting that it is not notable enough. Didgeridoo gets 527,000 results. And it is not actually linked to by an article in Wikipedia. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Then delete Didgeridoo because it's well-known enough that we don't need anything in Wikipedia to tell us what it is. Blair P. Houghton 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "It's encyclopedic in that it explains something that you and I didn't know before." - that's like saying something is "coloured blue, in that it is shaped like a coffee cup". silsor 23:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I can only respond by saying no it's not, because to paraphrase (iirc) Max Planck, your argument "isn't right, it's not even wrong." Blair P. Houghton 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons established by Blair P. Houghton. —RaD Man (talk) 04:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's cruft, not dicdef. Wyss 23:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• From one okaku to another, delete. humblefool® 23:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at most redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:13, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think we need an encyclopedia article on the Japanese word for underpants. Half Life 2 isn't such a blazing sun of notability that anything on which its light falls becomes notable itself. --BM 00:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You'd delete Millard Fillmore. 65.122.15.98 02:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if there are any non-notable American presidents, he'd be one of them. But, no, I reckon all American Presidents -- indeed all heads of state (but not their twin brothers who died in infancy) -- are notable. --BM 15:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• redirect. Yuckfoo 01:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rossami (talk) 05:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "something that I didn't know before" is not a reasonable criterion for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Being known by those of "the culture in which it was created" (an assertion that, by the way, Evil Monkey has demonstrated isn't even verifiable) does not magically make a dictionary definition anything other than a dictionary definition. This is a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 03:00, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
• Redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, by the way, what's a didgeridoo? :-)) Lectonar 15:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Elefino. What are Pantsu, and why are alla these punks talking about them all the time like they're special? Blair P. Houghton 20:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) (driving home the fricken' point)

• • You could try looking didgeridoo up in that Wikipedia thingie. I hear it isn't half bad. --BM 19:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thx. At last I know what it's good for; but I abide by my decision, we could do without Pantsu, or could we? Lectonar 15:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef at best, more likely just gamecruft. Edeans 03:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Believe it or not, I typed "pantsu" into the search to find out just what it meant; I'd seen it mentioned in conversation on IRC and elsewhere. It's not encyclopedic, but it's not a dicdef either. This is what people like to call a meme, perhaps not in the strict definition, but in the memepool.com sense. But does this deserve the same level of documentation that All your base are belong to us has received? What is the threshold for worthiness? It's hard to decide. Google search? Pantsu by itself brings in ~17800. That makes me believe it's used in more than just the few contexts listed -- Half-Life mods and Anime IRC channels. So give the article a chance to grow into something that documents the phenomenon and contributes to our understanding of the subculture. Keep. - mako 09:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to undergarments without merge. There might be something worth saying specifically about "pantsu", but if there is, none of it is in the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Abraham

It may be a common name...don't know about famous though... — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Looks like vanity to me. Inter 10:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would call it vanity, except his biggest claim to fame is having a common name. Average Earthman 13:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Autobiography writing attempt. jni 13:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or move it to the user page of the person who created it, assuming that person decides to create an account. (Otherwise we'll have to start getting into arguments about whether his name or my name is more common.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish notability, vanity. Megan1967 01:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as user test. Wyss 23:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete!. --Neigel von Teighen 23:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Megan1967's revised version will be put in the Transwiki queue to go to Wiktionary. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meliorist

Dictdef. Inter 10:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Claims to be a copyvio, so delete instead of transwiki. (I'm not listing it on WP:CP since I don't have the software mentioned to confirm the copyvio, and can't see any benefit from someone writing a replacement at /Temp.) —Korath (Talk) 12:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• WP:CP is also for suspected copyright problems. And, to be honest, there's little reason to doubt that it is. Whilst I agree that Meliorist/Temp will almost certainly be {{move to wiktionary}}, unless someone comes up with a suitable redirect, the overriding consideration is to stop the publication of copyright violations as soon as possible. I've listed it. Uncle G 16:51, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
• Cleanup copyvio and move to Wiktionary. Megan1967 05:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have modified the article since original VfD to avoid copyvio. Updated possible Wiktionary entry at Meliorist/Temp, for further comments/votes. Megan1967 04:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. The only thing to merge was the date of the murder. dbenbenn | talk 18:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Howe (murder victim)

Although his murder was undoubtedly extremely tragic, when you strip out all the stubs tags, the cleanup tag and headings all you are left with is the year he was born, the date he was murdered and the date he was burried. If this info is worth having put it in the Mary Bell article (his murderer). He was only 2 years old and so not notable for anything else. Thryduulf 12:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any data not already in the Mary Bell article. The case is significant in UK law, but sadly Brian Howe did not have the opportunity to become notable in his own right. Average Earthman 13:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as per Average Earthman. Katefan0 18:04, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-4 20:39 Z
• Redirect to Mary Bell. There's more information about him on that article. --Idont Havaname 23:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, apart from his murder he wasn't notable himself. Wikipedia is not a crime database. Megan1967 01:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, delete and redirect to [Mary Bell]. Does not warant a separate entry HowardB 08:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I must agree. Delete. DS 00:31, 9 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. Joyous 02:36, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Jessop

Although her death was extremely tragic, this article doesn't establish why she or her murder was sufficiently notable to become encyclopedic. Thryduulf 12:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unfortunately, unsolved murders are not sufficiently rare to make this notable. Wikipedia is not suitable as a memorial. Average Earthman 13:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree that most murder victims are below the bar. The Jessop case is in the top levels of national fame in Canada, and subject of one of and perhaps the most famous wrongful conviction in Canadian history. Strong keep. Samaritan 13:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You've convinced me that Guy Paul Morin deserves his article, but that is not the topic of this vote. Was this case referred to in the Canadian media as the Morin trial/inquiry or the Jessop case? Google doesn't help, there aren't many hits at all for a variety of names, and 'Jessop case' refers more to a trial in India than this one. Average Earthman 13:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Household names in large countries are encyclopedic. Samaritan 13:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That would depend on how the trial was presented - English people know about the Yorkshire Ripper, but would be very hard pressed to name one of his victims off the top of their heads. This means the Ripper is the subject of an article, but his victims are not. Average Earthman 17:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly notable in Canadian law, and (unfortunately) virtually a household name. Jessop's murder and Morin's subsequent arrest, aquittal, conviction, appeals, and aquittal were a staple of Canadian news for more than a decade. Though I agree that unsolved murders are tragically common, this particular unsolved murder clears the notability bar. If the article isn't kept, then the material should definitely be merged into Guy Paul Morin with a redirect. --TenOfAllTrades 13:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The reasons here are valid, but the article should make it clear why they are notable, not the VfD page. Thryduulf 15:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Samaritan. Keep. --YUL89YYZ 17:11, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While Wikipedia is not a memorial, this death was particularly notable and newsworthy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-4 20:37 Z
• I've added a link to wrongful conviction, which should make the significance of the case a bit more clear. I've also taken out the bit about the tree (which, while touching, is not encyclopedic in the slightest). And yes, it is an unqualified keep; Jessop is a household name in Canada, and people are, if not more likely to search for her specifically than for Morin, certainly equally likely. Bearcat 21:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. From what I gather here, it's a very notable case of wrongful conviction. --Idont Havaname 23:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, apart from her murder she wasn't notable herself. Wikipedia is not a crime database. Megan1967 01:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Spinboy 04:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Samaritan. -- Curps 05:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep given its apparent significance in Canada. Capitalistroadster 06:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is notable in its own right (not as an example of an unsolved murder) TigerShark 00:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Yuckfoo 01:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Necrothesp 03:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 18:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Organic growth"? What more could be added?? HowardB 08:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything not there to Guy Paul Morin and redirect to that article HowardB 08:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Tragically, as with Brian Howe (murdered at the age of three), Christine Jessop never got the chance to be notable herself.

Sharon Tate gets an article, because she was notable even outside of the manner of her death. George Lawrence Price is notable, because of the manner of his death. Christine Jessop... I don't think so. Incidentally, what about Nicole Simpson? DS 00:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Important in Canada. --Westendgirl 09:01, 9 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. Joyous 02:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kristen French

Although I am probably going to get a reputation as heartless for requesting VfDs on articles like this, murder victims (however tragic) are not necessarily encyclopedic and this article doesn't establish a reason for her death to be so. Thryduulf 12:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. While it would be a much better world if murder was so rare that being a victim of any murder, let alone extremely unpleasant ones, made someone notable, we do not live in that world. Average Earthman 13:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree that most murder victims are below the bar. Kristen French is a household name in Canada, and will be in the living memory of the generations who remember the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka trials, the most infamous murder trials in Canadian history (Louis Riel's was for treason), until at least late in this century. Strong keep. This would merit deletion only if Ron Goldman and Laci Peterson were deleted. Samaritan 13:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, she's hard to google-test: her first name is sometimes spelled wrong, and often just omitted - say "French and Mahaffy" and everybody in Canada knows what you mean. The "French and Mahaffy families" are also major figures. Samaritan 13:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, for precisely the reasons enumerated by Samaritan. French and Mahaffy are household names in Canada; the Bernardo trials were as big in the media there as the O.J. Simpson trial was in the States. --TenOfAllTrades 14:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The article should say this. I'm not Canadian and so don't have the background knowledge assumed in the article. Thryduulf 15:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Samaritan and TenOfAllTrades are absolutely correct. - SimonP 16:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Samaritan. Keep. --YUL89YYZ 17:08, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While Wikipedia is not a memorial, this death was notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated above. This murder victim qualifies as notable. I assume there's probably an article for the second victim as well (Mahaffy or something like that). 23skidoo 20:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-4 20:30 Z
• Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy are both household names in Canada. They were both the subjects of major missing persons searches before their bodies were found, and not just locally -- I can personally vouch for having seen "HELP FIND KRISTIN FRENCH" billboards hundreds of miles away from St. Catharines. It's not even the slightest exaggeration to state that every single Canadian who was old enough to follow the news in the 1990s can name these two right off the top of their heads. This is equivalent to Laci Peterson, as Samaritan points out above; the victim is every bit as famous as the killer. Unqualified keep. Bearcat 21:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, for reasons listed already. --Idont Havaname 23:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, apart from her murder she wasn't notable herself. Wikipedia is not a crime database. Megan1967 01:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. You'll surely burn in hell for this one, Thryduulf. Say your prayers tonight. —RaD Man (talk) 04:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not Canadian and so didn't have any pre-knowledge of this case, I was also only 11 at the time it happened and so not in the habit of following international news (if it made the news in the UK?). When I put the article up for VfD there was nothing in the artcile about strong media coverage, or a mention of the other victim. Thryduulf 09:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Spinboy 04:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Samaritan hit the nail on the head. - Jord 04:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Samaritan and Bearcat. One key point is that this victim became sadly very famous in Canada long before her killers were caught, thus notability in her own right. -- Curps 05:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems that this is again a very notable case in Canada. Capitalistroadster 07:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete otherwise non-notable murder victims unless their case sets a legal precendent, spawns new legislation, or something else that will matter 100 years from now (or becomes larger than life, like the fiction-inspiring Jack the Ripper victims). FWIW, I'm not sure we need to have the Laci P. article, but "laci peterson" gets 450,000 hits, while French Mahaffy gets less than 10,000. PS I sure wish people would stop making personal attacks on VfD pages. Niteowlneils 13:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree about the personal attacks. One should note that Mahaffy is frequenly misspelled (as Mahaffey) which probably affects your Google count, and further that Google may be somewhat unreliable as a notability metric outside of the United States. A search on "Jean Chretien" [2] (Canada's Prime Minister from 1993 to 2003) garners only 403,000 hits—fewer than Laci Peterson.
  • Above comment from User:TenOfAllTrades
    • What's more, all the online media responsible for those Laci Peterson hits did not exist when French's tragedy was most current. Unless we want to be an encyclopedia of what people wrote about in their blogs and livejournals in the early 2000s, this is no comparison. Samaritan 17:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've just added information about the Green Ribbon of Hope adopted by her fellow students, teachers and friends at her school; the Green Ribbon Campaign continues as the major national campaign for missing children across Canada to this day. It also gave its name to the Green Ribbon Task Force, a controversial multi-agency police group that was later subject of an inquiry. Samaritan 18:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Setting the threshold at "what will matter 100 years from now" is not only impossibly high (much current Wikipedia content would fail this test) but utterly impossible to predict. Our only standard must be what matters today, because the readers of Wikipedia are using it today. Some crime victims become famous in their own right, sometimes by mere accident of circumstances: for instance Carlie Brucia, whose name is much better known than her killer's. If the public has made someone famous for whatever reason, then they are "notable" for our purposes, regardless of youth or lack of personal achievements. In any case, Samaritan makes a very valid point that Google hit counts can't be compared for events that occurred before vs. after the current era of widespread Internet use. -- Curps 19:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Yuckfoo 01:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Necrothesp 03:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 19:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. A single article should be written on these crimes, possibly merging the information from the existing articles and all the separate articles on the perpetrators and victims Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka, Kristen French, and Leslie Mahaffy should be redirected to that one article. I will leave it to those more familiar with the facts to decide an appropriate title for that article -- perhaps something on the lines of French-Mahaffy Murders. It doesn't make structural sense to me to have the same basic set of facts quaduplicated in four different articles. If any of these people had notability independent of these notorious crimes, a separate article on that person would be reasonable, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --BM 19:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Largely because of the Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign founded in her name. This adds significance to what is otherwise a tragic footnote to history HowardB 08:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep. Household name in Canada. Article could be expanded to explain her family's role in preventing media from gaining access to videos. Also, there may only be 10,000 Google hits, but the Canadian population is small and Canadian media do not have the same global penetration as the US outlets that covered Laci Peterson. Moreover, as a past event, few people are likely to be blogging about French than Peterson, thus limiting the number of hits. --Westendgirl 09:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this was an important part of Canadian criminal history and will probably become more prominent when Karla Homolka gets released later this year. Dabbler 16:55, 9 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.

The votes were 4 keep, 4 delete, 1 merge. dbenbenn | talk 18:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Runnion

Although it pains me to list the article here, I don't see why the (admitedly apalling) murder of Samantha merits a wikipedia article. Thryduulf 12:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Delete. Too bad there is no article for the Joyful Child Foundation, which was formed after her death. I could see merging the info into an article about that. Katefan0 18:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. Form an article about the Joyful Child Foundation, and merge this content there. We have a precedent with the case of Polly Klaas, which redirects to The Polly Klaas Foundation. --Idont Havaname 23:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • My mistake; that article is called Polly Klaas Foundation. --Idont Havaname 23:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, apart from her murder she wasn't notable herself. Wikipedia is not a crime database. Megan1967 01:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google search for Samantha Runnion returns 7.940 results 1 including from CNN and it has led to the formation of a foundation. Capitalistroadster 07:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added info the murder given details of why Alejandro Avila was charged. The case is still going on and is continuing to attract publicity. As it could well be a capital case, it is likely to remain prominent for some time. Together with the Joyful Child Foundation being formed and the Samanta's Pride named after Runnion becoming active in Southern California, I consider that makes her notable. I have created an article on the Joyful Child Foundation but I consider that a redirect would not be ideal. The best solution in my view is to focus the Joyful Child Foundation article on its work against child abuse while keeping the Samantha Runnion article about the court case. No change of vote. Capitalistroadster 07:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, without comment. Wyss 23:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• please keep this. Yuckfoo 01:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Necrothesp 03:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think this has been de-listed yet, but this is definitely a notable case. It got much media attention when it occurred. Mike H 09:06, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 12:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kosara

A web forum. Doesn't seem notable. --Lee Hunter 13:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. jni 14:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a webguide. Katefan0 18:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This basically functions as an ad for a message board that sounds just like every other message board. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advertisement. Megan1967 01:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 22:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton Moore

The article does not establish any notability, claiming being 'goofy' and hanging around on a bike as the major accomplishments. Average Earthman 13:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It's obviously hard to google-test Clinton Moore, but with his claim to fame being second prize from a suburban public access cable channel for an ad "about taking out the trash," it's probably not necessary. Delete (or make it a User: page if its creator registers). Samaritan 13:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another joke from the meat helmet IP. Andrewa 18:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 22:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as another sophomoric, adolescent male vanity joke bio. Wyss 22:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• One of several from this illustrious yet anonymous being. Delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 02:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Sigh, I can't believe a 19-year old can't write any better. Delete Lacrimosus 08:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as well as Gregory Hudkins. Adam Bishop 01:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy delete needs to be available for such articles, that no reasonable person could find met our notability standards. Postdlf 01:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 04:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Moore has danced with very many women at school dances" The Jacobin 05:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Garbage. — Brim 09:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete – flamurai (t) 11:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, humorous BJAODN-worthy vanity... --Idont Havaname 04:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goliard Time

Non-notable neologisms (zero google hits). 68.81.231.127 14:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete SCA cruft. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:08, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original humour, essay. Wyss 22:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Neigel von Teighen 22:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE (done by Neutrality, who forgot to archive this). jni 15:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiplet

Non-existent computing term. Zero Google hits. jni 14:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, never heard of it. Sounds like a vanity neologism to me. Wyss 22:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 7 merge, 7 delete, 1 keep. dbenbenn | talk 18:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haxxxor movies

also including Haxxxor, No Longer Floppy and Haxxxor 2, Fear of an 8-bit Planet
(also redirects). Non-notable? Porn advertising? DJ Clayworth 16:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Before anybody starts voting, I'm adding the two articles on specific movies, as I expect the nominator would intend, to this vfd, modifying Template:Vfd so their notices point here. Samaritan 17:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The reason I added these in first place is the fact that volume I is one of the movies promoting nmap. And someone had already writed about Matrix in nmap article. So I added the missing two (Haxxxor 1 and Battle Royal). I'd also see that Haxxxor movies are quite special underground productions. No basic hollywood stuf, but a erotic art. I Wonder, if a full spoiler of every movie is needed for an article to be exiting enought. Easyas12c 17:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm nominator doesn't seem very sure if/why these should be deleted. I'm not too sure on notability either, but it doesn't look like advertising, so I vote merge the movies into Haxxxor movies Haxxxor and keep that. Kappa 19:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge articles on individual movies into Haxxxor movies Haxxxor. --Carnildo 20:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Surely Wikipedia isn't comprehensive enough to have a page on that I thought. Apparently not. Keep for the amusement of those reading the nmap article Ojw 22:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• If merged, I'd think the target title should be Haxxxor? Samaritan 23:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, for sure. --L33tminion | (talk) 00:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Haxxxor, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that Haxxxor redirects to Haxxxor movies, which itself is tagged for VfD. Niteowlneils 19:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 22:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Pornography. With almost no exceptions, particular pornographic movies are not notable, and this is not one of the exceptions. --BM 00:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Yuckfoo 01:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere. Grue 10:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Xezbeth 12:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 20:52, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all: pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move/merge to Haxxxor. (I'll mention parenthetically that this isn't the strongest vote, but if I say it's "weak" a tallying admin might count it as half a vote, which is not my intent.) Samaritan 15:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move and merge --Easyas12c 18:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Farouk Khury

Nonsense. jni 16:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. It's an article from the future! Or a bad-faith hoax. Shimeru 20:51, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Future histories are patent nonsense. Speedy deleted. RickK 21:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Second cold war

Original research/speculation DJ Clayworth 17:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Speculation, not verifiable fact. Average Earthman 17:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First option: The author has a time machine. Second option: The author has speculated. Choose! --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Didn't we already have a vote on this this just recently? Perhaps by a slightly different name? Andrewa 18:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That depends from how different you think that Second Cold War and Second cold war are. Uncle G 23:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yes, thank you, that's the one, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Second Cold War as Gazpacho points out below. Different content, perhaps different authors, this is by a (very active) userid created a few days after the previous article was deleted. Although the deletion log says the vote was 6/2 for deletion, the two votes for keep were both unsigned and by the same IP. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete recreated deletia. Gazpacho 22:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it and categorize it to Original research/speculation Faethon2 22:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't keep original research. It's a fundamental Wikipedia policy. If you think that this article is original research, your vote should be "Delete". Uncle G 23:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
    • You dont keep them? That too sad! Please change your policy asap, because original research is very funny and usefull too. Faethon2
      • Humor is no reason to keep something in an encyclopedia (that's why we have BJAODN), and it must be kept in mind that an encyclopedia's purpose is to describe the world in a factual manner, and thus is not the place to propose new theories. See Wikipedia:Original research for more information. If you wish for the policy to be changed, it's not as if somebody can just change the law and all will be different; it would have to be approved by the Wikipedia community and to be frank repealing such a fundamental, chaos-preventing policy will never get anywhere near enough support to pass. — Ливай | ☺ 04:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: See my comments on your talk page re Wikinfo. Andrewa 20:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• My vote is the same as I gave in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Second Cold War: No references provided. Original thesis. Delete. Uncle G 23:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation. --Idont Havaname 23:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 01:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, although World War III shows us that encyclopedic articles about potential wars can exist. However, that article focuses on actual events that nearly led to WW3 in the past, the use of the term and well-known fictional scenarios involving it. This article merely speculates on various loosely related possible futures in which the world is divided up into two superpowers and thus qualifies as original research. — Ливай | ☺ 04:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, speculation. Let the author write a screenplay about the Second Cold War, sell it to Hollywood, use the proceeds to buy Wikipedia from Jimbo, and then he can define the policy here to be anything he wants (although he shouldn't count on keeping all the current editors). --BM 21:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant original research and prolly wrong-headed and rantish. zzzzzz. Wyss 22:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original speculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original "research". —Stormie 08:13, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• "God help us. In the future."-Criswell Delete. Edeans 04:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - speculation , and capitalist dreaming.. max rspct 22:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 5 delete, 5 merge. dbenbenn | talk 23:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Binary Babe

Entire content: "Binary Babe strips and tutors numeral systems in pornographic movie Haxxxor 2, Fear of an 8-bit Planet. She does naked dumpster diving to find abandoned information in movie Haxxxor, No Longer Floppy. There under name Lady Debug. This was disliked by a person using the same name in real life and was thus changed during filming of the 2nd HaXXXor movie." Samaritan 17:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Why not speedy this? --Neigel von Teighen 17:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Haxxxor movies, if that is kept, otherwise delete. BTW being a porn actress is not yet a reason for speedy deletion. 20:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This is real?! That's hilarious! Still, it's GOOPTI, so merge and redirect would be sensible. --L33tminion | (talk) 00:43, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Porn for computer nerds? Well, I suppose we are a substantial part of the market... Anyhow, merge and redirect. — Ливай | ☺ 00:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Haxxxor, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• (Merge and redirect for my own vote, of course.) Samaritan 02:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • On reflection, no redirect. Samaritan 00:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with Haxxxor and haxxxor movies. Quite funny, but not notable enuf for a timeless encyclopedia. Niteowlneils 19:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a speedy, cruft is all. Wyss 22:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Characters from pornographic movies are not notable, no matter how notable the movie itself is, which is probably not very. --BM 00:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:08, 7 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 23:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fruit Brute

nn. Bart133 (t) 17:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep disagree. It's a real cereal, part of a famous and long-running line, and understandably could be looked up by people who saw it in Pulp Fiction and wondered if it was real or not. note There's a little bit of innacuracy in the article, which I'll correct in a minute or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, somewhat notable - 1410 Google hits, article needs expansion. Megan1967 01:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Doh! Keep. —RaD Man (talk) 04:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have added to the original article since VfD. Fruit Brute was also seen in another Tarantino film Reservoir Dogs. Megan1967 05:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP you've got to be freaking kidding me with this non notable crap. 1) thats not a valid VfD reasoning 2) this cereal has definately been around longer than the submitter (a 6th grader) has been alive 3) has sold more than 20 million boxes since its inception. God this makes me feel old but I was eating this cereal at the breakfast table before you the submitter were sperm.  ALKIVAR™ 06:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There goes the neighborhood! —RaD Man (talk) 06:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seriously, wtf? CryptoDerk 06:23, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. When I listed this on vfd, it opened with the words "It is a ceral. Hi yum yum in my tum tum." Bart133 (t) 18:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

don't lie, it makes you look even more juvenile, this diff clearly shows you started it with "nn". Learn to face up to when you've goofed, it will go a long way in your life.  ALKIVAR™ 20:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)My bad, I was looking at the wrong history.  ALKIVAR™ 03:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

he isn't lying and you ought to apologize. The edit history of Fruit Brute clearly shows that at 17:25 4 Feb, when this VfD was opened, the entire text of the article was: It is a ceral. Hi yum yum in my tum tum. Fruit Brute: is one of a line of monster-themed breakfast cereals produced by General Mills. It is also the name of the cereal's mascot, a variant of Frankenstein's monster. Other cereals in the line include Count Chocula, Boo Berry, Fruit Brute, and Yummy Mummy. (Fruit Brute and Yummy Mummy are no longer sold in retail stores.) --BM 01:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What Bart133 doesn't mention is that silliness aside, this article was a valid stub to begin with. A valid stub on a culturally notable breakfast cereal, something that many people conceivably have and will search for on Wikipedia. I think the 6th grader deletionist should be the one apologizing here. —RaD Man (talk) 03:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and its not as if this is the first wiki article to have nonsense added/vandalism either. we dont delete everything thats been vandalized do we?  ALKIVAR™ 03:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. - Chotchki
• Keep, way. Wyss 22:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bogus VFD.--Centauri 23:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep. vfd is nn. Yuckfoo 01:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. General Mills spends millions on marketing its sugary cereals for kids (and apparently on product placements in movies); so everybody has been inundated since childhood with a gazillion ads on these products. That does not make Count Chocula, Fruit Brute, Boo Berry, etc topics for a general encyclopedia. Mention in articles about General Mills, Cereals, Marketing to Children, etc, or a variety of other topics: yes. Separate article on each brand of cereal: no. --BM 01:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thankfully your sense of myopia is not contagious. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be fucked. —RaD Man (talk) 05:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I wish it was, then we'd be spared all those bloody awful adverts pushing sugar loaded cereals to small children, who then want to eat huge amounts of them and become hyperactive and fat at the same time. Average Earthman 11:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • POV PUSHER!!! but seriously, although i personally agree with you, I dont think this is the platform to make a statement like that. While we may question their motives, we cannot argue the fact that because of these overwhelming advertising campaigns that these are not notable. (Your also welcome to make a NPOV statment on General Mills regarding their targeting of sugar products to children).  ALKIVAR™ 22:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It is silly to say that something shouldn't be kept because it's over specific as long as it's at least somewhat relevent (ie not an etry about a particular person's LiveJournal) the great thing ABOUT Wikipedia is that it's full of highly specific entries. Besides, I don't think cereal is the greatest threat facing the nation's children today. User:Jakek101 4:02, 8 Feb 2005
• Keep. Notable breakfast cereal sold to millions of people. Please don't forget wikiquette in making your comments.Capitalistroadster 07:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and everyone stop taking vfd so damn seriously. Calm down and stop insulting people. Gamaliel 22:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment Gamaliel's remark is spot on, I must say I think these sugared cereals are horrid and usually not a good idea to make available to kids but that's not a reason to delete the article. This mark was probably eaten by hundreds of thousands of children and its marketing aspect is still culturally visible (Pulp Fiction being an example). Wyss 00:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It's a fantastic obscure reference that one day will be on family guy and people will come here curious about what it is.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:47, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fence post repair

This was marked for speedy deletion by an anonymous user. I think it's far from a speedy deletion candidate, so I'm moving it here. It's written in a how-to, not encyclopedic form right now. I've got no particular preference, though I could see merging bits of it for Fence or Fence post/Fencepost?), and redirecting. CDC (talk) 17:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• See also Fence Post repair and its current VfD. —Korath (Talk) 18:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, my mistake. So we can just turn one of them into a redirect to the other, since they're the same, and then make just one decision, right? CDC (talk) 20:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest making Fence Post repair a redirect to Fence post repair for reasons of correct capitalisation. There was a VfD a few weeks back Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The shitty asshole which was a similar situation. I made one into a redirect to the other and asked that the outcome of the VfD be applied to the redirect as well. I believe that although not strictly according to policy it was accepted on the grounds of common sense. Thryduulf 23:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• abstain (just clarifying that the above doesn't constitue a vote either way). Thryduulf 23:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. "I learned all of the information from my father". Personal research by the author's father. Delete - Wikipedia is not a DIY manual. Let the author put it on his own web site (and sneak in a few links to it in appropriate Wiki articles.) -- RHaworth 13:04, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

• Delete. Josh Cherry 20:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yikes, content's wonderful, but not only is this original research, WP is not a DIY guide. Wyss 22:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What if you don't have a fence post to repair, like me? --Neigel von Teighen 22:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DIY info. Edeans 04:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

abstain I can understand that this is not a do it diy website, however I feel that this article is informative and is not just a diy article because it does define what the process is and supplies information on why the posts rot in the first place.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 23:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Britt Shadforth

Not notable. Doesn't even try to be an encyclopedic article. Thue | talk 17:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 17:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• It's a schoolyard attack page - speedy. (No claim to notability, no web hits.) Samaritan 20:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily if possible. — Ливай | ☺ 22:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as libel. Let's not feed the troll for the next five days. - Lucky 6.9 01:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. -- The Anome 01:52, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Rock Database

Not notable yet. Bart133 (t) 18:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is a self-professed "small website" with a description of Led Zeppelin, a message board and an online radio station. Wikipedia is not a web directory, so delete. — Ливай | ☺ 00:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. LizardWizard 00:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advertisement, Wikipedia is not a Web Directory. Megan1967 01:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this ad. Wyss 22:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 23:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yochlol

No potential to become encylopedic. The scant information here is already available at Lolth. -- Dominus 18:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lolth, no more than a stub is possible and furthermore this is fancraft. Ashibaka tlk 21:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Lolth, and add redirect. Megan1967 02:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. Wyss 22:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've redirected it. --Dominus 12:36, 6 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 NOTHING. dbenbenn | talk 23:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking News

Nothing but a dicdef, and basically information that could be drawn from the article title.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BS143

Nothing but a dicdef, and one that probably could be lumped in on the British Standard page, or a page about power cables. ral315 19:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I saw the BS143 in a wiring document, and wanted to know what it was -- surely wikipedia can do that sort of thing? (BS 4343 and BS 1363 are similar devices with full pages) Putting it on British Standard page would be like putting BS 6008 on the British Standard page

Delete - blatantly incorrect definition. Ojw 19:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BS143 is about pipe fittings, not low-voltage cables, see this product catalog and there are several other similar available via Google. But what puzzles me a bit is that the now unsigned comment above, justifying the article, is by User:Ojw too, who is also the article's author, and has now voted to delete the page. Curious. Andrewa 09:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not so much "unsigned" as "expanded to include the following paragraph" - sorry for any confusion. Anyway if we can define it, then wikipedia is a reference guide, and it would be nice to find out what such things are by searching on wikipedia (the alternative being a big payment to look at the standard) - if something claims to be a "standard" surely it belongs in wikipedia, same as the hundreds of pages we have for web standards? If we can't define it, then that's where my delete vote came from - it's incorrect as it stands, so if it can't be corrected then delete. Maybe we could add a topic on the helpdesk to see if anyone knows the detaiils (or lives close to a BS library) Ojw 20:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, aside from the content problems, topic doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Wyss 22:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Bart133 (t) 02:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thematic Theory of Irish Music

original research Uncle G 20:02, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

• Keep. It refers to a paper that was circulated. It's not original research.--Dzimmer6 21:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • (Special:Contributions/Dzimmer6) Prove it. Cite your sources. It's strange that none of the "members the academic community in Boston" who saw this purported electronic mail message have never breathed a word about it on Usenet or on the Web in the years since, isn't it? It's almost as if this were a hokey theory that two drunk students thought up in a pub one day and decided to put on Wikipedia. Uncle G 23:24, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  • Hey genius, take a closer look at that contributions link you so helpfully cited. I didn't write the article. I went into the edit mode one time well after it was written. I don't know these guys from Adam. It's an interesting article, and there's certainly something to the theory. And it's sad that I have to tell you this, but the number of times something shows up on Google is not always determinative of its legitimacy. Try googling Hungarian painter Samu Beregi.--Dzimmer6 20:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting article, but it gets zero Google hits. --Idont Havaname 22:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think there some way to expand this by adding more references to songs. --Neigel von Teighen 22:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. Not only original research, but racist. RickK 23:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep. Wikipedia takes itself too seriously most of the time. This article is a breath of fresh air. -- RHaworth 13:12, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  • We almost have to take ourselves seriously, this is and encyclopedia, after all. Delete. humblefool® 00:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Josh Cherry 20:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete near-joke of no particular value. This wouldn't even merit mention in Music of Ireland, certainly doesn't merit an article of its own. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmusicological, original research, drinking rant, trivial, not encyclopedic, drinking rant, possible vanity, drinking rant. Wyss 22:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons stated above. Besdies, "Spancil Hill", "Paddy on the Railway", "Kilkelly", "The Auld Orange Flute", "The Rocks of Baun", "Darby O'Leary", and plenty of others contradict this theory. I have to admit it does hold true for many though. -R. fiend 23:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • FYI, "Spancil Hill" contains the following lyrics:

I payed a flying visit to me first and only love / She´s as white as any lily, she´s as gentle as a dove / She threw her arms around me, saying "Johnny, I love you still" / Ah, she´s Ned, the farmer´s daughter, the pride of Spancil Hill /

If that's not a reference to women, I don't know what is. Similarly, "Auld Irish Flute" is about religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, and talks about a Protestant fellow who marries a Catholic girl (Women AND fighting). "Darby" contains the memorable line "I was hungry and tired and my spirits were low /for I got neither whiskey nor water."

--Dzimmer6 19:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • Ah, but it does not say that "women" is an element, but "the courting of women". Dreaming about a lost love is close, but not actually courting. Mentioning someone had got married in a single line of a song doesn't count either. And while there is rivalry betwen Catholics and Protestants in the Auld Orange Flute, there is not any actual fighting. Having low spirits and thirst from not drinking doesn't really make it a song about drinking, in my view. If you take there rules too widely you probably won't find a song anywhere that doesn't reference these elements. -R. fiend 00:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Yuckfoo 01:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete -- but let it join the rest of the Bad Jokes etc. It reminds me of a fanous country music song by David Allan Coe that has meta-lyrical references to how all great country music songs are about trains, trucks, getting drunk, or getting out of prison. To make sure that his own song is the perfect country music soung, the narrator inserts the following verse. "I was drunk when my Mamma got out of prison/ I went to pick her up in my pick up truck. But before I could get to the railroad station, she got run oer by the gol darned traaaain."

I remember so well the first version I heard... Mama was drunk when she picked me up from prison in my pickup truck with my dog, but on the way home we got hit by a slow movin' freight train, my truck was wrecked and my pooooor dawg died... Wyss 19:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; good for a chuckle, but now I need a drink. Antandrus 04:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good for a laff I guess. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how this qualifies as "racist", although it is, I admit, a weak attempt at ethnic humour. Edeans 05:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 17:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zepparella

Spam/advertisement for a rock band, few Google hits. Note this article is written in such an odd way that it was initially deleted as patent nonsense but recreated by a persistent anon. -- Curps 20:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Nonsensical, not an encyclopedia article. jni 20:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not understandable, and if it's really about a band that one is not notable andy 20:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it and Categorize it to Spam/advertisement Faethon2 22:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a newly-registered user. I don't think we have such a category. If it was kept, it would have to be despammed and rewritten to a neutral point of view. -- Curps 22:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You dont have a Spam/advertisement section? I think we have to create one right now! Faethon2 22:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Uh, no. And what was wrong with your original User:Faethon account? Delete. RickK 23:40, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • We don't have a spam/advertisement category because neither of those items belong in Wikipedia. Oh and delete. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 03:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sadly... when PoV is removed, nothing's left for now. Good luck though! Do some shows, make some recordings! Wyss 22:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I would be willing to write an article on the band but as they have not released anything under the name Zepparella, it's almost impossible to do anything more than a sub-stub. Perhaps in the future. No vote. Megan1967 02:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 16:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this POV-spam-bandity. Bart133 (t) 02:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this Garage Band Bandit spam. Edeans 05:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gorge Fusion

I originally listed this as a copyright violation, but I found an earlier revision that wasn't actually copied from the site's FAQ page, so I just reverted it. Whether it violates copyright or not, this does not belong here. The webcomic it comes may (arguably) be notable enough to deserve an article, but a game within the webcomic surely is not.

A link from the article on the webcomic to the FAQ page about this game would convey the information in a more useful form. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable - fails Google test (less than 35 hits). Megan1967 02:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as cruft and begone. Wyss 22:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is fancruft, but the fan who created it made a substub, so it must be non-notable. Bart133 (t) 02:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Done and history has been copied to correct talk page. Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Roussel,

This article was the basis for the real article at Raymond Roussel. The author made a mistake with the comma, and no content has been added to this article. In the meantime, the real article has been expanded since. Therefore, this one should get deleted. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-4 21:29 Z

• Delete for reasons already given. No need for redirect. --Idont Havaname 22:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Neigel von Teighen 22:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate/redundant article. Megan1967 02:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as user mistake, dupe content. Wyss 22:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete'. There should be a speedy category that covers uncontroversial cases like this. --BM 00:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Bart133 (t) 02:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Which has been done. Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dominick balsamo

The soccer player is non-notable. Entropy five is listed on VfD, and is probably going to be deleted in a few days. The article was created by the same person who created Entropy five. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-4 21:44 Z

• Delete. Title is not correctly capitalized, and the article needs to say what team he plays for. Apparently (as Google tells me) he was a soccer player in college. About the most notable soccer-related accomplishment he has is that he was an All-American in high school. [3] I don't think that's very notable... if he were in Major League Soccer or on some elite European club like Real Madrid or Manchester United, include him. Since he's not, and he doesn't seem to have done any other extraordinary feat, don't. --Idont Havaname 22:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, probably vanity. — Ливай | ☺ 00:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, no helpful context. Wyss 22:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As a footballer, needs to have documented appearances for a significant team (e.g. major professional team, international caps at full or under 21 level). As a musician, needs to be either signed to a label or have clearly demonstrated influence (e.g. quotes from notable musician citing him as an influence) Average Earthman 11:43, 6 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.

The votes were 8 keep, 7 delete. dbenbenn | talk 22:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of This American Life episodes

I wouldn't oppose having useful content in this article, but currently it has existed for nearly a year and it contains absolutely nothing that the official Main Show Archive does not. And, if that page ever goes down, so will all of the links in this article... Is there any reason to keep this? ~leif ☺ _HELO 22:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This article is different from the Main Show Archive in one important aspect: it is a listing of episodes (organized by episode number), where as the Show Archive is a listing of shows (organized by date and including repeated episodes). For example, the Show Archive links to Episode 214 "Family Physics" three times because it aired three times, whereas our article lists the episode just once. --MarkSweep 06:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've removed all external links except for one general link to the official archive page. I suggest that further discussion about which links, if any, to include take place on the article's talk page. --MarkSweep 02:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Fancruft perhaps, but not more so than in most other cases. If the official page ever moves, we can update all the links here with a simple AWK script (that's how the links were created in the first place). If the official page ever disappears, we will still have a list of episodes as a memento. Another thing: if you say that you "wouldn't oppose having useful content" here, that suggests to me that you think the topic is indeed encyclopedic, and should be expanded rather than deleted. --MarkSweep 01:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Utterly pointless duplication of the program's own archive page. And if you could explain, without resorting to logic-chopping, what possible useful content that could be added here that wouldn't fit in This American Life I'd be grateful. --Calton 02:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Pointless duplication was not a deletion criterion last time I checked. You might have a point that list of This American Life episodes could be merged with This American Life, but you could say the same about virtually every other article in Category:Lists of television series episodes – it's almost always possible to make a case for why "list of FOO episodes" should be merged into "FOO". As for useful content, it would be helpful to cross-reference the episode list with contributor articles like David Sedaris, Sarah Vowell, etc. The whole point is that this list can be properly wikified and expanded by us, whereas the official archive page cannot. --MarkSweep 03:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Check [4]What Wikipedia is not--clearly this qualifies. Niteowlneils 19:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean a stripped-down, automated, wholly unnecessary duplication of an existing website's content shouldn't be considered grounds for deletion? Hell, it borders on outright copyright violation.
      You might have a point that list of This American Life episodes could be merged with This American Life. That was precisely NOT my point. I repeat, what "useful content" could be added to the episode list that would NOT belong in the main article (or that of the contributors)? Answer: none.
      Do you have a point you can make without distorting people's positions? --Calton 05:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • First, I'm not in the business of distorting anyone's position. Your prior point was that anything worth adding to this article could equally well be added to the This American Life article. That suggests to me that you're thinking any content (current or future) worth preserving could be merged into the main article. Like I said before, if there is a point here, it would apply essentially unchanged to a lot of other episode lists. Second, it's hardly a copyright violation, as one cannot claim copyright on a mere list of facts, which includes lists such as this, phone directories, etc. Also, if you check the history of this page, you'll see that it was cleary not created as a pared down version of the official archive page. I agree that this article should be expanded, which would make it even less of a copyright violation, if it ever was one. Third, I maintain that useful content can indeed be added here: we can provide content summaries and link them with other articles. In fact, I've just done so for a few episodes I remember off the top of my head. Now when you go to Trail of Tears and click on What links here, you'll be directed to List of This American Life episodes among other articles. This clearly cannot be done on the off-site official archive, and it could only be done in the main article This American Life if that included/transcluded the content from list of This American Life episodes, hence my first point. --MarkSweep 06:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • First, I'm not in the business of distorting anyone's position So you're an amateur, then?
        • That suggests to me... Perhaps you should stick to what I wrote and not what you imagine I wrote.
        • Pointless duplication was not a deletion criterion last time I checked. That suggests to me that you're not up on Wikipedia policy. You might want to read this, Perry Mason: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
        • This clearly cannot be done on the off-site official archive. Of course not. What you should be doing is the other way around: add the TAL link to the Trail of Tears article, if you think it's relevant. Otherwise, that suggests to me you think users are supposed to go to the "What Links Here" button, spot the List of This American Life episodes link among all the others, and go to that page and search for the appropriate link. It's so wrong-headed, that suggests to me you're trying to justify the article with some ginned-up "content." --Calton 09:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There clearly can be content here that is not found on the Main Show Archive. For example, several episodes or stories have won radio journalism awards. I've added a few of those. --MarkSweep 00:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There should be a list of the awards the show has won in the main article. ~leif ☺ _HELO 04:03, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with MarkSweep. Samaritan 04:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Meh, keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 04:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. See [5]--"Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links." IMHO, votes from people who often make strong personal attacks on VfD should NOT count. Niteowlneils 19:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? If so, are you volunteering to be the supreme arbiter of which comments do or don't qualify enough as "strong personal attacks" to disqualify a voter? IMHO, votes from people who suggest other peoples' votes shouldn't count should also NOT count, so there. ~leif ☺ _HELO 04:03, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, potential for duplicate content, for starters. Wyss 22:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Where exactly do you see that potential? We don't have any articles on individual episodes, so the only other target would be the This American Life article itself, which explicitly points to this list. --MarkSweep 00:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just a repository of external links, which is what wikipedia is not. -R. fiend 23:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • So if we got rid of the external links to make it look more like list of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episodes (2003 series), would that be better? --MarkSweep 23:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I listen to (and love) this show. This is the best show NPR airs in my area. This list is pointless, though. Delete. Could be done with catagories if the shows exist, however. humblefool® 00:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Lists are distinct from categories. "Lists have a substantial advantage over categories and series boxes in that they can be annotated. A list can include items that do not yet have an article, and can also show series or groups where the items would be completely separate on the category page." Categories only make sense if there are articles, but it makes no sense to create a separate article for each episode. If we did that, we would end up with something like list of Frasier episodes, which is to a large extent a collection of red links. --MarkSweep 00:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but remove most/all external links. -Sean Curtin 00:24, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Yuckfoo 01:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. The show is notable and the article has potential but as the list mostly contains external links these are going to have to be removed. Perhaps just write a short description on each show instead in their place. Megan1967 02:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain: After the recent updates, the article does now actually have some content that is not on the Main Show Archive page. To the admin who counts this VfD: Please do not count my nomination as a vote to delete. ~leif ☺ _HELO 04:03, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since update. Kappa 10:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just a list of nearly 300 links to pages on a single other web-site, americanlife.org. If you removed all those links, all that would be left would be a short blurb about some of the 2004 episodes. Articles that are essentially lists of links to other web-sites are against Wikipedia policy, and even if they weren't, this so-called article can and should be replaced by a single sentence in the "External references" section of This American Life, letting people know that they can find information about particular episodes on americanlife.org. --BM 16:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • So would you prefer it if we got rid of the external links (which are useful content, IMO) to make it look more like list of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes or list of Seinfeld episodes? --MarkSweep 19:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • At present, it is 95% a violation of Wikipedia policy (being a list of external links), and 5% a useless list of blurbs about some of the 2004 shows. Removing the external links would make it 100% a useless list of blurbs about the shows -- so it is difficult to call that an improvement. The solution is to delete the article, as I said before.
      • So why don't we remove all episode lists? The same point applies to virtually all of them. And check the present state, the external links are gone. --MarkSweep 20:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Good idea. Why don't we start with the Star Trek episode lists, or even better the episode articles. Put one of them up for a VfD; you'll have my support 1000%. --BM 03:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Apples and oranges -- the TAL Archive Page is an official, well, archive page. Care to point to any official TV episode archive pages? --Calton 02:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -Redjar 14:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough as a list. At worse, Merge it. -CunningLinguist 23:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article has been userfied. Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haifa Through My Eyes

original research that reads like advertising blurb from a travel brochure. Uncle G 22:53, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

• Leave a gentle message on the Talk: page of its creator explaining why this shouldn't be here, like I did. The contributor seems earnest and well-meaning, and if they blank the page and go on to further adventures as I've suggested, we can speedy it. Samaritan 23:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal essay, POV advertisement. Megan1967 02:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, travelogue etc. Wyss 22:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising blurb. Bart133 (t) 02:10, 9 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 moved to WP:IFD -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do redundant images go here?

Or should I leave them for some sort of "orphaned image" collection?

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball fielding positions text.jpg

Replaced by Image:80px-Baseball_fielding_positions_tiny.png Ojw 23:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_lf.jpg
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_cf.jpg

Replaced by Image:Baseball_cf.png Ojw 23:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_rf.jpg

Replaced by Image:Baseball_rf.png Ojw 23:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_2b.jpg

Replaced by Image:Baseball_2b.png Ojw 23:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_ss.jpg

Replaced by Image:Baseball_ss.png Ojw 23:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_3b.jpg

Replaced by Image:Baseball_3b.png Ojw 23:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_lb.jpg

Replaced by Image:Baseball_1b.png Ojw 23:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_p.jpg

Replaced by Image:Baseball_p.png Ojw 23:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_c.jpg

Replaced by Image:Baseball_c.png Ojw 23:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions.xcf

Replaced by left centre right 1st 2nd 3rd shortstop pitcher catcher Ojw 23:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • They should all go on the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion page. RickK 23:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, moved. Replaced VFD with IFD on each image page, but I haven't done anything about those VFD subpages above Ojw 00:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Since this has been placed on IFD, I am removing all those subpages with the text content copied here. Except for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baseball_fielding_positions_lf.jpg, which was already deleted. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 3 keep, 3 delete. I didn't count Paul Fischer, since his vote was his first contribution. dbenbenn | talk 22:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nikonian

Non-notable forum. Linking to the webpage three times in a one-paragraph article is a sign of vanity. RickK 23:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, website advertisement, neologism, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Retain, word is in fairly common use on internet photography sites (not just nikonians.org). Article has been edited to make it more encyclopedic.--Paul Fisher 03:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, first impression is a complete yawn, but this article describes a popular and helpful website. Wyss 22:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Yuckfoo 01:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable. Bart133 (t) 02:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Should have an entry in wikidictionary plus the website is supported by Nikon max rspct 23:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crimerama

An ad in Portuguese for some short story on the web. JoaoRicardo 23:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, advertisement, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lit ad. Wyss 22:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a cut-n-paste job from a Geocities web site (extlink in the article), doubtless intended as an advertisement. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this advert. Bart133 (t) 02:16, 9 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.