Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 January 10 1.1 Cannonization 1.2 Gavin Lawrie 1.3 Bemanix 1.4 Monostringism 1.5 Ivo Milas 1.6 Asian tsunami : The earthquake 1.7 Steven Durel 1.8 Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe 1.9 Coma MB 1.10 Trifexta 1.11 Flatt's_Farm 1.12 Andres A. Rubio 1.13 Carol L. Kefalas 1.14 "club 85" 1.15 Off-budget enterprise 1.16 JubbaG 1.17 Scatolinguistics 1.18 Fear It, Do It 1.19 Adrian Hopgood 2 October rewrites 3 Polish mother 4 A possible psychiatrical explanation 5 Stereotype? 6 George Costanza 7 Fair use rationale for Image:MiniforumLogo.gif 7.1 Greg Staw 7.2 Joshua Claybourn 7.3 Committee for a Unified Labor Tendency 7.4 Skiadas 7.5 Great Resynchronization 7.6 The Templar Revelation 7.7 Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein 7.8 Remote influencing 7.9 Glenn 7.10 Back-up friend

[edit] January 10

[edit] Gavin Lawrie

Autobiography. ugen64 01:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious vanity. RoySmith 01:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 02:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Neutrality^talk 08:20, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. It's actually a company. A double quoted search gives 1K hits. Non notable. Gtabary 11:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One point for working out the use of capitals, minus ten for not being notable in any way. Average Earthman 11:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This garbage should be on the guy's userpage not an article. Non notable, vanity page and poorly-written article. Hey it qualifies for being deleted three times over --Cynical 20:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bemanix

Non-notable website, Alexa rank 1,878,510. --Stormie 01:22, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad. Wyss 02:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Whether or not it's an ad, and regardless of its degree of appeal to 'Doze+MSIE users who are happy to have Alexa.com watching their moves, it's not a notable website. Delete. -- Hoary 02:51, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising. Thryduulf 11:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - 1.7 K hits. Adv. Non notable yet. Gtabary 11:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - explained above. I'm removing it from cleanup as well, so it doesn't clog up the list. If it survives, we can re-add it. JesseW 05:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monostringism

Probable nonsense. Zero Google hits. Could probably be speedied. --Kelly Martin 01:28, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as rambling deep [sic] thoughts. Wyss 02:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The original author vandalised the {{vfd}} notice. I've restored it. The article is unsubstantiated gibberish that resembles Plutonium Atom Totality Theory updated for 21st century Physics. Delete. Uncle G 02:43, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Delete unless Kenneth tells me what the frequency is. Starblind 03:16, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This has got to be gibberish. -- Walt Pohl 06:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is an interesting case of literarism. The process is as follow: in order to clarify a smoky pseudo-theory, establish a comparison with some scientific findings/theory/words. But... one can clarify something only if what is used in the comparison, is clear to all. In that case, the string and super-string astrophysical theory, is likely to be totally unknown by the author as well as audience. Result: the comparison darkens everything (and lowers credibility if there was any). Gtabary 11:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A funny joke, or a bad essay. Gtabary 11:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• String theory is a serious, but still controversial, theory of sub-atomic physics. This is crap. Delete. Edeans 03:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivo Milas

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

• Presumably Croatian. Stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • This has had its two weeks. If it isn't translated in the next 24 hours, I'm inclined to just put it on VfD, since I'm not sure even of notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

(End moved comments)

Not obviously notable, untranslated after 2 weeks. I'd be glad to see salvage and demostration of notability, but barring that, delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:39, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article provides no evidence this is encyclopedic. Wyss 02:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, Croatian text is vanity/nonsense about ham and sausages, etc. -- Curps 04:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.-gadfium 05:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thryduulf 11:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Untranslated after 3 weeks. Gtabary 11:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asian tsunami : The earthquake

User:Kenkam (contributions) unsuccessfully proposed a name change of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake to 2004 Asian Tsunami. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#2004 Indian Ocean earthquake .26rarr.3B 2004 Asian Tsunami or Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake; he received no support at all.

He now seems to be trying to circumvent this by creating a parallel or duplicate article at Asian tsunami : The earthquake.

As further evidence of bad faith, he had earlier used an anonymous IP User:203.120.68.68 (contributions 5 Jan – 7 Jan only) to spam every article in Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake with links to http://www.asiantsunami.org/ , which indicates he has some kind of vested interest (perhaps financial?) in pursuing this. -- Curps 03:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because it was only created a few hours ago (copying most of the content of the original article) and because of the bad faith involved in its creation, this is a candidate for deletion and not for merging under Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. -- Curps 03:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He has also twice deleted the VfD notice on the article page, though perhaps this is due to unfamiliarity with Wikipedia rules. -- Curps 04:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - terrible page title and nothing worth merging back. While I can't quite call it an outright bad faith action, Kenkam is showing a lack of respect for the opposition to his actions expressed on Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated above. The page title sounds like a bad disaster movie sequel. 23skidoo 04:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Moron. Mark¹ 04:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:59, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —kjd 05:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It actually sounds more like the prequel. BanyanTree 06:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• An internal fork of an article to get around consensus... over a title? Delete. Samaritan 06:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --foobaz·✐ 06:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete K1Bond007 06:37, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dear Wiki contributors, admins & sysops. You have been mislead by Curps. Please see that article in question and decide for yourselves if deletion is a correct Wiki thing to do. I have decided not to pursue the re-naming of Curps's article 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and through consultation with other helpful Wikis, I have decided to start a series of Asian Tsunami articles on my own ... there is freedom to initiate such a move right ? The articles in questions is proposed to drill deep in the subject in question. In Asian tsunami : The earthquake I have attempted to focus just on the earthquake that caused the Asian Tsunamis. In Asian tsunami : Time-line (currently vandalised by Curps), I have drilled down to the exact minutes to minutes account of the waves of deadly tsunamis. I will be added other article in the Asian tsunami series like the humanitarian aspects, current news & occurrences etc. because I think it is the right thing to do. kenkam 06:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Kenkam, you should not spam the above message to the Talk pages of everyone who has voted here so far. -- Curps 07:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Curps, you definition of spamming is grossly questionable. To 'spam' (by Wiki definition) is to broadcast unsolicited messages. My messages, on the contrary, to every contributors of this vote, is a communique rather than a spam. Your other accusation of me spamming your articles are also not acceptable. When I posted "asiantsuani.org" (a forum site for relief work) to the specific relevant sections (perfectly OK because you have other forums & blogs there too) you deliberately deleted my entries and launched unwarranted accusations at me for spamming ... is that the right thing to do, Curps ?? I have left the deletes as it is because if the originator of the article does not appreciate the particular contributions (though very relevant by me), I will never force it on him. kenkam 07:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's common-law policy disallows article forks as a method of resolving disputes. Calling Curps a vandal for attempting to follow general Wikipedia consensus on the article name is hardly a way to win support. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • "there is freedom to initiate such a move right ?" - No. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Cyrius. I resent being spammed on this issue, which is more likely to result in a ban. Clearly people other than Curps are making their opinions clear about this article, so it can't be considered simply one user's viewpoint. 23skidoo 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete. --fvw* 07:36, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Delete. Terrible title. No merge. User's disregard for Wikipedia policy and consensus is troubling. I applaud his energy but would prefer to see it spent improving articles rather than quibbling over names. He cannot proclaim ignorance; he was well aware that not a single user (aside from a possible sock puppet) voted in favor of the proposed name change. Kenkam, you also seem overly attached to the idea of "ownership" of articles. The articles are neither yours nor Curps's; it does not matter who initiated them. If you have information you would like to add about the earthquake, you may add it to the earthquake section of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. If the timeline interests you, feel free to work on it, although the title should be 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake timeline or 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami timeline. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Gah. Delete. - Vague | Rant 08:10, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article, ban user. Neutrality^talk 08:22, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article, but make sure to retain proof so we can get royalties from the inevitable TV movie of the same name. Rhobite 08:45, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge whatever new info into 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and then delete. For heaven's sakes, please try to be actually helpful and respect the general concensus. --Andylkl 08:54, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Hippalus 09:25, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete An other user not respecting WP consenus, and innocently riding alone and circumventing... I am free to do what I want, huh huh!. And we end up cleaning... Bad faith or good faith is not the question for the end result is the same. Am just out of a one month dispute on this kind of behviour. Am tired. :-) Gtabary 11:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: unless the article is started from scratch with a substantial amount of content that may be considered superfluous to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake page. –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 15:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Deadlock 16:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article, delete user, delete user's home, delete user's family. ADH (t&m) 19:18, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as fork, merge any original stuff. But I think Curps could have been a tad less vitriolic --Cynical 20:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- note sure where I am supposed to place this. Spinning off subarticles is fine, but this is not an appropriate title nor topic. Tuf-Kat 01:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. This is getting ridiculous. Kenkam, suggest you focus your energy on improving the existing articles rather than fighting about the names. - Jpo 04:36, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if possible, then redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE!!! I have heard of grammar nazis, but hydrographic nazis?? WTH??? Edeans 04:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, then add redirect. Megan1967 04:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No redirect because what's the chance anyone will try to go to "Asian tsunami : The earthquake"? Carrp 17:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just silly. I'd consider speedy deletion appropriate in this instance, considering the circumstances. -- ChrisO 08:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Meesham 12:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mcpusc 09:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No question. Shmuel 07:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Hi all, I have listened to BanyanTree's advised & visited Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines ... found out some interesting pointers to share with you.

Key policies 1) Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically.

• Was Curps Neutral when he deleted other points of view, even if they were differing. The term "Asian Tsunami" is an accept term or name for the event that happened on the 26th Dec 2004, covered by news media and the net. Blatantly calling 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is silly because there have been hundreds of earthquakes very week since 26th Dec 2004 but there is only one deadly tsunami that has been named by the media as the "Asian Tsunami".kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Point is, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was the name of the article that already existed. Renaming an article that lots of people are following is a big change. That article is in a state of flux at the moment, because the tsunami is a current event. After a few months, things will settle down. You'd be better off making whatever contributions you have to the existing article, and if, later, consensus develops that it is badly named it might be moved then. PaulHammond 12:53, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Moreover, the earthquake was in the COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA (if we want to be precise) not exactly in the Indian Ocean per say ... 2004 Indian Ocean is wrong big time !! There were more than a few hundreds earthquakes in the Indian Ocean in 2004 too !! kenkam 08:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The earthquake epicentre was about 150km west of far-northern Sumatra. In the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean does not begin at the west coast of Sumatra there, it begins at the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Sumatra is well and truly IN the Indian Ocean. Click here for a map of the Indian Ocean. As for how specific the title should be, I don't know. But it's already been to a vote once, and you were the only person in favour of your proposed title. Finally, it is not entirely relevant whether our title matches what the mainstream media has been calling it. We have redirects in place that also show up in search engine results with the same content, so people searching for any of the titles will be able to find the Wikipedia article. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Hi Mark, thank you for your pointed comments. USGS FAQs calls the earthquake "Magnitude 9.0 OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA" and 68 other earthquakes were recorded since that day.kenkam 10:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If you by chance go to the western coast of Northern Sumatra for a holiday, and dip your toes in the water at the beach, you are dipping your toes in the Indian Ocean. Similarly, if you dip your toes in the water at the eastern coast of Northern Sumatra, you are dipping your toes in the Indian Ocean. The earthquake happened in the Indian Ocean. Can you clarify what you mean by "not exactly in the Indian Ocean per say"? - Mark 10:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Kenkam, if something is off the coast then it is in the ocean. And 150 kilometers off the coast of Sumatra is well into the Indian Ocean. Had the epicenter been on land, the effects would have been very different. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This is like claiming that the puddle south and west of Los Angeles isn't the Pacific Ocean. 23skidoo 15:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2) Don't infringe copyrights. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Submitting work which infringes copyrights threatens our objective to build a truly free encyclopedia that anyone can redistribute, and could lead to legal problems. See Wikipedia copyrights for more information.

• No problems here. kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further. See What Wikipedia is not for more info.

• An 'encyclopedia' by Wiki definition is "containing articles on topics in many different fields ... specialise in a particular field", by branching Asian Tsunami to its categories covering specialised field & topics is my purpose & goal. In fact, I have come to a point to consider creating a "Asian Tsunami" Wiki project on my own ... care to contribute here ;-) kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4) Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement, Wikipedia:Civility, Dispute resolution.

• I admit I see thing differently, maybe because I am orient-asian, from a land far away ... in this case at the epicentre of the disaster ... I need some respect & space which Curps has failed big time in rendering to me / others. kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• You deserve space because you are at the epicentre of the disaster? I thought you lived in Singapore, which was virtually untouched by the disaster... - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Space as in respect & understanding ... yes ! Singapore is less than 1,000km from the epicentre, where Thailand, Bangkok is by distance further at 1,260km. Singapore was spared by God's grace because of the land mass of Sumatra & Peninsula Malaysia. We are nearer than any of the affected countries, furthest is East Africa, 5 times the distance from Singapore. Singapore is blasted with news everyday ... can't blame me for the Asian Tsunami Propaganda ... media says so !!... ;-) kenkam 10:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• No one blames you for considering it. However, it is ignoring consensus and forking new articles which concerns me. As you rightfully point out, you live in a part of Asia that was not directly affected by the tsunamis, whereas other non-Asian countries which border on the Indian Ocean were affected. This is exactly why your proposal was not approved. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Behaviour guidelines 5) No personal attacks (and move personal debates to email)

• I am attacked by Curps ... if this was real-life I would have been murdered by him already !! ... ;-) kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't be silly, Kenkham! Making absurd comments like this doesn't help people to calm down and focus on the articles. PaulHammond 12:57, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • You called Curps's actions vandalism. That's one of the most common personal attacks around here. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

6) Please do not bite the newcomers

• Not only did Curps bite me, he chew the bits he bit-off from me !! He bit me when I was new, before I had an account, and he is bitting me now too !! kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• "Don't bite the newcomers" works fine until the newcomers start ignoring policy and consensus, and start stuffing things up. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry ... not ill intent meant. kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

7) Three revert rule (Revert wars considered harmful)

• While I had the courtesy to announce my idea to propose a change of name of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, he just went ahead & moved my articles without consultation & consensus more than afew times ... poor me. kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• First off, they are not *your* articles. Nobody owns these articles. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree.kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Secondly, the unanimous vote on Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake showed a clear consensus to leave the primary article on the disaster at that title. By creating this new article at your own chosen title, you are ignoring that consensus. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not neessarily ... I branched other topic that had evloved from the event and do not plan to not talk about indian ocean earthquakes in 2004 which is what 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was about ... right ? kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Finally, with regards to the three-revert rule which you have listed this under, you have already twice reverted the addition of the VfD notice to the top of Asian tsunami : The earthquake. Adding this message is a matter of Wikipedia policy, which you now seem familiar with, so why did you revert Curps with a edit summary like "Deliberate vandalism by User : Curps"? - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Did I not leave it alone after that ? I make mistake too ...;-( kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • On the other hand Curps has deleted my comments too (he reinstated it) and moved articles without first seeking move consensus, when the intent of the new article are not about earthquakes in indian oceans but about the aftermath of the Asian Tsunami (true to it title) ... kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kenkam, you keep saying "Curps has moved articles without consensus". Can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean that sections of articles have been moved around within one article, or that articles have been renamed without discussion? If the latter, were these substantial articles, or duplicates of larger articles that needed merging and redirecting? Did anyone else complain about these edits? You need to be exact (and preferable point to the appropriate page histories) when making claims like this. PaulHammond 13:03, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

Applying Wikipedia:Google test linked from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ;

Please see searches for tsunami on Google's December 2004 Zeitgeist Archive ranked as 1st and also absence of earthquake searches on Google's January 2005 Zeitgeist Archive. As of 12th Jan 2004 search hits for just the word tsunami alone in Google is 27,800,000.

See also Wikipedia:List of articles frequently visited through Google.

Ranked	Term Used	Search Results Site Hits (12 Jan 2005)
		Googles	Yahoo	MSN
1st	"Asian Tsunami"	5,180,000	2,180,000	441,196
2nd	"Indian Ocean Tsunami"	2,600,000	917,000	152,025
3rd	"Indian Ocean Earthquake"	1,150,000	809,000	154,343

We should let the numbers decide themselves because that's how the world sees it.

kenkam 21:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Search results are irrelevant. A search on any of those three search engines for 2004 Asian tsunami already brings up the Wikipedia article up as the number 1 result. People will see our article as the top web page out of however many millions no matter what phrasing they use to refer to the disaster. - Mark 09:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Thank you Mark ! You have made my point wonderfully. Changing the current article's name of 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake to 2004 Asian Tsunami will facilitate a more user friendly & natural naming convention, see Wikipedia:Naming Conventions. kenkam 22:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, he makes the other point. By moving the page we ensure that everyone hits a redirect, a la Hurricane Ivan (2004) vs Hurricane Ivan. Google puts the original page, now a redirect, first in their results. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Durel

Seems like vanity...69.177.128.183 claims not to be him but I am suspicious. Also, Rick Cane, the subject of Durel's writing. (69.177.128.183 also created Bacon Academy but that is probably okay, minus the mention of Durel.) Adam Bishop 03:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. That IP traces back to Connecticut, where Durel is from. The ISBNs and books can't be found anywhere except his site (plus anyone can get an ISBN). 5 websites on google, and rickcane.com looks like a geocities page circa 1998. The "publisher" of his books has a website and, surprise, it redirects to rickcane.com. CryptoDerk 03:54, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • As it would. The article does say that Durel self-published his novel. Assuming good faith on the part of 69.177.128.183, knowing that there's the possibility that Steven Durel could have a fan in the same state as himself, and even though there's suspiciously more information in the article than can be gleaned from the author biography on the web site, I disagree with vanity. But I question notability. Delete. Uncle G 05:40, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
    • I mentioned the IP thing for 2 reasons, 1) it could support Adam's view, and 2) it presents the view that he is only known locally. Regarding the ISBN thing, sure a lot of people self publish, but I mention it to bring into question notability. I think a lot of people would see an ISBN and automatically assume notability, so that's just some preemptiveness on my part. To me, anyway, the vanity view can only be supported circumstantially, so I'm much more comfortable arguing the notability issue. That being said, the article does reek of a lot of information that just isn't at all relevant with respect to what he is supposedly notable for, such as his parents getting divorced, his political views, and his travels abroad. Also I just noticed: regarding the newspaper article about him, it's from a paper that he used to work for, hmm... OH SNAP! I sent an email to Steven Durel and he emailed me back:
      Received: from [69.177.128.183] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:06:58 PST Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:06:58 -0800 (PST) From: Steven Durel <stevendurel@yahoo.com>.
      Well, that proves the vanity issue. CryptoDerk 06:13, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: 69.177.128.183 just removed the email header from my comment. CryptoDerk 06:25, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • A comment on the paper issue: That report is dated June 2001. Durel's biography says that he was not employed by that paper until over a year later. I don't think the newspaper can be faulted for employing an author that they once did a story on.
• Delete vanity Cdc 04:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity and lying don't make for good articles or good Wikipedia editors. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I note that IP 69.182.21.102 has just vandalized this page, removing all delete votes and negative comments. This is IP 69.182.21.102's only edit; an odd coincidence that they would find this specific sub-page to vandalize, and would vandalize it in this way. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course. All the IPs that have edited this page are from SBC snet.net in Connecticut. They're all Steven Durel. CryptoDerk 20:11, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearest possible example of a vanity page. Steven, this information should be on your user page, if anywhere. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 04:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promoting vanity, sockpuppet. Wyss 05:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE, clear poppycock. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 11:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• A Question of Credibility - There is so much useless stuff on this web site. You have to acknowledge that. Who does this hurt? Who does it offend? If Wikipedia is really a global information center, then this post should be kept as-is. But we all know it's going to be deleted just by the tone of everyone here, so just get it over with.
  • If you feel that there is "so much useless stuff", then feel free to list things for deletion, as per the deletion policy. Thus, I do not acknowledge it. If I see something that is non-encyclopedic, vanity, nonsense, etc. then I take appropriate action. Other users do the same. If you've noticed something that has slipped through the crack then feel free to bring it to someones attention, or rectify it yourself. Additionally, I think you are misinformed about what Wikipedia is and is not, I suggest you read Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not. Finally, you will see on the deletion policy page that vanity pages should be listed on VFD for deletion. I do hope you stick around and continue to contribute to Wikipedia, we could always use more good editors. CryptoDerk 06:36, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Questionable votes

All of these votes/comments (all but one unsigned) come from IPs belonging to the SBC SNET and can all be traced to Connecticut.

Comment: As one of the poor souls who occasionally tries to close these discussions, may I request that you please leave these "questionable votes" where they were contributed? It is helpful to have such votes tagged as suspicious. Your IP investigation is good data. It's also helpful to standardize the bulleting and indentation. But as a general rule, actually moving the votes destroys the context both of their comment and of the replies from experienced users. It also confuses the edit history. In some cases, that has been important to sorting out the decision. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not delete. I have seen Durel at two different book signings in Connecticut. He is somewhat known in the New England-New York area. He's not a phony, even if he was jerk enough to write a biography on himself. Maybe someone should just edit out some of the fluff.
• don't delete. i have heard of steven durel. he is the writer of the rick cane series. why don't you contact waldenbooks and ask them if steven durel has ever done signings for them, because they will tell you that he did. he might not be dean koontz, but he still is a published author. why not have an article on him?--69.0.73.165 21:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I am the person that posted this. I don't really care if you delete this because I'm not Durel. He's just a favorite author of mine, so I felt like posting an article about him. He's a real author and I bought his book at a book signing in Manchester, CT. There is a news article about him that I included that I think should be taken into consideration. If you guys want to delete it, feel free. I don't care. I was just trying to help out because I thought this site is supposed to be some type of large information center.
  • If you did obtain all of this detailed biographical information by some means other than the simple expedient of being Steven Durel yourself, then you can allay our suspicions of you by citing your sources, as the edit page told you to do. There's stuff in the article (such as the fact that Durel is "known to be a strict libertarian") that simply isn't in the sources that you did cite. Uncle G 05:50, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Listen, I got the information from books and newsletters sent to fan club members (see the web site) and from Ubersite (check out Steven Durel's submissions at www.Ubersite.com). You guys seem to be putting too much thought into this. If you really believe that I'm Durel and I'd be vain enough to write an article about myself, then delete it. Whatever. The guy has a bunch of other stuff online and in Connecticut that establishes who he is, so I'm sure he wouldn't care. I'm only pissed because I spent time on this and I'm being accused of actually being Durel. Just delete it. I'm not fixing it, so please feel free to do what you will.

[edit] Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

At best, it's a brand new theory. More likely it's just plain nonsense. Either way it should be deleted. There's exactly 1 paper published [1], in the Journal of the ISCID, a dubious, online, non-peer reviewed journal [2]. The theory's inventor, Christopher Langan, is a "fellow" of the ISCID [3], so his paper is basically self-published. Google gets 2000 hits [4], but a lot of them appear to be spam. Supposedly the author, Christopher Langan, was "recently profiled in Popular Science Magazine" [5], but the Popular Science web site [6] doesn't find him.

I think this image [7] sums it up pretty well.

• Delete Dbenbenn 04:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• angelfire.com won't let one see the last link, other than by approaching it in some particular way(s) not disclosed above. But the info on this page shows that Langan is not a man to be trifled with. Indeed, his site ctmu.org (actually just a front for megafoundation.org/CTMU) is a nightmare of, um, iconoclastic FrontPage/Flash markup that clobbers Konqueror in best barroom bouncer style. Where was I? Yes, delete. -- Hoary 05:55, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

  Hm, that's strange. Here's a (temporary) copyvio version of link 7: [gone now]. Dbenbenn

  Wow. Er, thanks. -- Hoary 05:28, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if Langan knows what he is talking about, there is no indication that this metaphysical theory is notable yet. Gazpacho 06:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:No original research. Delete. --Slowking Man 07:32, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• PseudoScience maybe but it is 100% genuine crap. Delete ping 08:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. Thryduulf 11:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 1) 2k hits 2) I also find lot's of spam hits in Google 3) This is indeed a new attempt to solve The problem of life with the true questions asked, the revelation exposed, the univeral explanation, the ultimate summary of all human findings... Gtabary 12:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear notable to me. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• An interesting debunk article could come from this, but until someone cares enough about the subject to write one, then I would prefer to vote delete. <sigh> So many idiots, so little time. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Correction, this type of theory is already very capably described in Unified field theory#Quack theories. I would suggest citing CTMU there as a perfect example of the type. So that's a merge I guess. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 21:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, other systems of this type have names like Christianity, Islam, Shinto... original resarch, way trivial deep thoughts, never mind the gibberish of a self-promoting crank, WP not a blog. Wyss 05:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. In addition to Langan's papers, including Introduction to the CTMU and The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory, where he describes the mathematical structure of the CTMU in considerable detail, there are numerous other sources, including this article and interview in Popular Science and a chapter in the recently published anthology Uncommon Dissent here's an excerpt. It would be ridiculous to evaluate his highly original and widely-discussed work by the vote of a handful of uninformed and obviously biased detractors. ...at 04:13, 2005 Jan 17 (and ten minutes earlier), 216.139.113.98 forgot to add "~~~~" to the contribution above.

• Comment: Original work, yes; widely-discussed, no. Wikipedia isn't where his (your?) work will be evaluated; physics journals will do that. -- Hoary 04:27, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
• Comment: First, since the CTMU is based on logic and analytic philosophy rather than physics, it may not be evaluated in a physics journal at all. Nor should it be. There's no reason to suppose that knowledge qualifies as significant only after being kicked around in particular journals. Some people don't choose to publish in such venues, and there's no justification for making any particular kind of journal the final arbiter of intellectual worth. When it comes to intellectual progress, there are no trade unions. .... at 07:01, 2005 Jan 17 216.139.113.98 again forgot to add "~~~~" to the contribution above.

• Comment: There is, however, some justification for making discussion in one or more peer-reviewed journals an arbiter of intellectual worth. If you agree, can you cite any peer-reviewed journals of logic and/or analytic philosophy that have discussed CTMU? And if you disagree, what arbiter would you suggest? (NB, please sign your contributions here by hitting the tilde key four times in a row. Thanks.) -- Hoary 07:16, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

• Comment: Some justification, but not much. Peer review is most effective with regard to long-established and familiar theories; it is more likely to be counterproductive when applied to radical theoretic departures. I don't know whether the CTMU has appeared in a "peer reviewed" journal, but I do know that it has been in plain view for years, and that any qualified persons who have found fault with it have had ample opportunity to register their critiques. Some have, and have been duly answered in plain view. With the rise of Internet fora, neither the world nor the academic establishment is in need of another peer-reviewed appendage to contain such dialogues. 216.139.113.98

• Comment: The fact that no-one with any degree of notability has expressed any interest in your ideas means that they are overwhelming likely to be junk. Most experts have far better things to do with their time than to debunk every piece of pseudoscience out there. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: If those who obviously know nothing about a given idea can simply dive-bomb in here, voice empty and derisive opinions, and thereby obstruct public access to it through this avenue, then many people misunderstand the purpose of an "encyclopedia". Everyone dislikes some of the philosophical and scientific theories in the public domain, and this kind of knee-jerk evaluation would long since have relegated most of them to permanent obscurity. Let's try to remember that opinions like those above also need to be examined for soundness and neutrality. 216.139.113.98

• You appear to misunderstand the purpose of an encylopaedia. It summarises the commonly-accepted knowledge of the day. It is not the place for original research. Perhaps we are not qualified to judge these ideas. But we are qualified to judge that no-one else apears to take them seriously. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Whether or not you choose to take a given idea seriously is of no general interest. But to pass formal or contentive judgment on it, you need more than what you have. You need an assumption-free reason why the idea obviously doesn't work, as opposed to personal prejudice or a passing impression that it superficially resembles other ideas you and your friends dislike. This idea is conspicuously in the public domain, and despite the fact that several good references have been provided, you can't name a single verifiable item of content that definitively marks it as invalid. It flies as well as many of the other ideas in this encyclopedia, and arguably much better. In any rational context, that would be the end of the story. 216.139.113.98

• Comment: I for one am not passing judgement on the inherent merits of the idea (its explanatory force, theoretical refutability, etc.). I'm passing judgement on its notability. One criterion I have for this is that it's little discussed. (A number of ideas that, unlike this one, are obvious tosh, are discussed and thereby are noteworthy, however much I or others might wish they would shrivel up and disappear: racial suprematism, etc. etc.) Another is that the main proponent of this idea here -- User:216.139.113.98, who may or may not be its author -- won't come up with the titles of respected academic journals in which it is discussed. Physics? No, it's less physics than philosophy. Philosophy? No journals again. Yes, ideas which I consider to be valueless (e.g. psychoanalytical stuff) are debated in respected journals; moreover, it's entirely plausible that philosophy journals are to some extent blinkered about new ideas, especially those that come from outside academe. But there exist iconoclastic journals (from off the top of my head, Radical Philosophy, though offhand I don't know if it still exists) and channels by which unorthodox ideas can be examined within and maybe enter the mainstream. (Sorry about mixed metaphors there.) My inability to show that it's worthless isn't enough -- it may indeed be impregnable to attack, or my brain may simply not be up to the task, or I might just not have enough time and effort. A quick writeup in the web supplement of Popular Science isn't really enough. Can you propose any other criteria of noteworthiness? -- Hoary 01:18, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

• Comment: The CTMU has been around for over fifteen years, for the last five in high profile, and anyone who has bothered to familiarize himself with it knows that it is not only notable, but profound. Given the amount of air time it has received in connection with its national media exposure and in subsequent discussion groups and Internet fora, questions like "Yes, but who among the people I personally consider (credible, interesting, a bigshot) is currently discussing it?" don't merit much of a response, particularly when Wikipedia hosts many ideas that see but little traffic despite their enshrinement in hypertext. By the way, the Popular Science article I posted is a scan of the hard copy - it was on tens of thousands of newstands across the US and abroad. (There have been other articles like it, but what I've given you is quite enough.) Langan is one of the uncloistered few who tried to take his insight directly to the streets; yet here you are, trying to ensure that when it comes to his work, a purportedly open encyclopedia confuses itself with a constipated digest for elite academic periodicals. It's exquisitely absurd to maintain that any philosophical idea, let alone one as unique and inevitable as the CTMU, should be held for ransom by pap-filled scholastic journals of philosophy; until very recently, the mere suggestion would have been quite unthinkable, and for very good reason. If you're interested in philosophy, but too lazy or preoccupied to fairly and responsibly evaluate the source material, then by all means, go to a university library and scan the philosophy journals for survey articles. But as you do, try not to lose sight of the fact that this is far less likely to put you in contact with the entirety of significant modern philosophy than with the latest ivory tower buzz. It's simply not fair, and it would only be cheating the public, to limit the circulation of an important idea like this one out of personal prejudice gussied up in a flimsy catch-22 party dress. 216.139.113.98

• Comment: I notice that the CTMU entry has been removed, but I can't find any mention of the criteria actually applied, or by whom. (It does seem that the user who posted the page had all of his several pages removed for some reason or another, but this too is shrouded in mystery.) Having reviewed Wikipedia's deletion policy, I also see that while deletion is subject to a vote, such a vote must be based on a set of explicit criteria, none of which would authorize the removal of an informative, well-written page on the CTMU. Therefore, I or some other CTMU buff may write such a page and resubmit...unless somebody here has information to the effect that this is destined to be a waste of time. Do any of you people have such knowledge? (I suppose you'd have to be some sort of administrator to speak definitively on the matter...) If so, on what is it based? Please identify the specific criteria that would be used to delete such a page. (Although I'd naturally appreciate a response, I would ask that you observe the civility guidelines which apply to this context - a couple of comments posted above clearly run afoul of them - and also that I be spared any reference to anybody's personal opinion, or for that matter any irrelevant set of superficial criteria purporting to identify a given theory as a "crank theory" without attention to its actual content.)

216.139.113.98

[edit] Coma MB

Promo for a non-notable forum website. Cdc 04:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this advertising. -- Hoary 06:42, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertising. Thryduulf 11:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have the feeling it's adv. Gtabary 12:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an advert, or as non-notable. Either way is good. Starblind 13:58, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 05:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, ad. --Deathphoenix 20:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trifexta

Blatand ad: "1. great design sulutions 2. growing tutorail base 3. Your total sulution". -Frazzydee|✍ 04:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd almost say it could be speedied as patent nonsense/newbie test. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as a typo to trifecta? Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flatt's_Farm

This fails the Google Test. Uncle G 04:32, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

• Delete I think this is probably the author's pitch to get an idea made into a tv program. Thryduulf 11:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Flatts Farm" -> 375 hits "Flatt's Farm" -> 7 hits. Gtabary 12:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I've just found evidence that this exists. I thus modify my vote to Keep with Cleanup to bring it up to the level of The_Avridge_Farm, which I've attempted. Uncle G 13:03, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fails Google Test. Megan1967 04:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's an ad. Wyss 05:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry he didn't find a syndicator. I wish someone would tell Jim Davis that huge eyes are unpleasant to look at. Gazpacho 06:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

A (politically-motivated) neologism coined by some blogger somewhere, or so we are asked to believe. -- Hoary 05:06, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

PS that still stands as a description of the article in its original form. And I agree with all the reasons given below for deletion. But that was for any of several earlier versions of the article. Now that the article has no mention of its original, non-encyclopedic pseudocontent, I vote keep. -- Hoary 08:14, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

• And one that was coined yesterday (January 9, 2005). I cleaned up the article on the sole basis that we already have Santorum, and was unaware of the timeframe. Given that, this is an obvious attempt to Google bomb "Cosgrove" via Wikipedia and its mirrors. Delete. Uncle G 05:32, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Delete shameful attempt at googlebombing. Lacrimosus 08:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Gah. Spammers. Delete. - Vague | Rant 09:26, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Thryduulf 11:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Given the specificity of the article I did a +c0sgrove +v@ginal and +c0sgrove +v@gina google search. -> < 1.9 K hits. But "c0sgrove" shows many times as a surname not as a neologisme. I belive there is a non-notability issue on this article. Delete. Gtabary 12:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for several reasons, especially neologism. This should probably get an article if and when it becomes as well known as Santorum, however. Starblind 13:19, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologisms coined yesterday are by definition unencyclopedic. -- Curps 02:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, spam in a can. - content was 100% altered. Wyss 05:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Do the same as Santorum: turn into a disambig, giving a brief mention of the neologism. Add to the disambig list Peter Cosgrove, the head of the Australian Army. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Modified article. Done. Keep. Uncle G 13:37, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Spam with mustard is still spam. Wyss 17:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's a good thing that the article as I rewrote it isn't "spam with mustard", then. It's a substantial re-write. Uncle G 19:10, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. The article now attempts to disambiguiate along with documenting a trivial spam attempt. This is not encyclopedic, and gives this spam the attention it seeks. ...Spam with mustard. Wyss 21:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The disambiguation was encyclopaedic. As Deathphoenix pointed out, we have other such articles. Indeed, I took the format from one such article. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

• Keep in its current version. I've seen similar surname-based articles, and this includes ambiguations too. --Deathphoenix 20:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they'd make appropriate VfD candidates too. Wyss 21:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Modified article again. Done. No spam. -- Curps 22:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The history comment was wrong, though. It wasn't a self-reference. The problem with self-references is portability. The text that you modified, however, would have been just as accurate had it been in (say) the paper version of Britannica. Not all occurrences of the word "Wikipedia" in an article qualify as self-references. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

• Yep! Keep now. Thanks, Curps. Wyss 22:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The logic of that seems flawed. If an article containing "A+B+C+D+E+G" is "Keep", the previous article with "A+B+C+D+E+F+G" must have been "Keep" (albeit with cleanup) as well. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It was VfD'd originally because the content was 100% "F". The article happened to have a relatively common name for a title and was rescued by transforming it into a disambiguation with zero reference to "F". Wyss 02:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Grue 07:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in present form -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keepmodified articleSc147 22:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as modified. --Goobergunch|? 22:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Andres A. Rubio

Not notable. Delete.-gadfium 05:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Evident vanity about a high school student. Delete. --Slowking Man 07:18, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• delete - vanity. Thryduulf 10:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete Gtabary 11:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as likely vanity, certainly not notable. Starblind 13:30, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We should be able to define speedy delete criteria for such articles. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a new user test, this sort of thing should be a speedy. Wyss 05:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carol L. Kefalas

Not sufficiently notable. Delete.-gadfium 05:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• delete - vanity. Thryduulf 10:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably not vanity, but fails the Google test. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article rewritten perhaps Salazar 02:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • User joined Jan 9 2005.
• Delete, nn stub, possible vanity or publicity artifact of some sort. Wyss 05:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Sandover 05:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if she gets an article I should get an article. (I shouldn't get an article.) —Ben Brockert (42) 06:03, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- only if rewritten to describe this individual, what she does, her biography, etc.Zantastik 06:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete possible vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 20:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Gamaliel 02:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "club 85"

Advertising, but not quite blatent enough for speedy delete. Delete.-gadfium 05:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Advertising: speed-delete I disagree this isn't blatent enough for speedy delete. Thryduulf 10:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 04:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, straight, short ad with a live link. Spam. Wyss 05:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable ad. I don't think it qualifies for a speedy delete, but it's definitely a delete. --Deathphoenix 20:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant ad, which means the guy who wrote it gets five days of free advertising unless this goes away quickly. OTOH, who's gonna look up a club in Wikipedia? I guess you get what you pay for.  :^) Delete. - Lucky 6.9 21:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Spam under a nonsense name. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Although this is quite a noteable venue for new bands in the Hitchin (local to me) area, it has to be a Delete unless someone makes a serious cleanup attempt.Sc147 22:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Gets about 12 Google hits. Neutrality^talk 06:02, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete JoaoRicardo 06:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How useful is a Romaji google test for an 19th century Japanese assassin? Kappa 06:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. According to the article in Japanese Wikipedia, he was one of the famous four hitokiri during the late Tokugawa shogunate. I searched his name in Japanese and got about 6500 Google hits. Kusunose 10:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs a cleanup, but thats not a reason to delete. Thryduulf 10:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Average Earthman 11:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs expansion. Starblind 13:15, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of the guy. --JuntungWu 14:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable figure. Shimeru 23:24, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notability. Megan1967 04:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it needs a rewrite. Wyss 05:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, send to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English or Wikipedia:Cleanup -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I doubt that Megan1967 would want an Australian of the same prominence deleted. Philip 06:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Only in your fantasies Philip. Megan1967 00:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have had a go at cleaning up the article. The guy was notable enough in the history of the late Tokugawa shogunate in Japan. In defence of my fellow Australian, the article as it stood did not establish notability and hopefully the new article succeeds in doing so. Capitalistroadster 08:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's now a great little article! Thanks to Kusunose for the reference and Capitalistroadster for the rewrite. =) --Andylkl 07:02, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep.

end moved discussion

[edit] JubbaG

Blatant vanity. It would be cool if Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal III (Vanity articles) would pass. jni 06:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Gazpacho 06:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity. Delete. --Slowking Man 07:15, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and website advert. Thryduulf 10:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity self promotion. Wyss 05:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 20:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fear It, Do It

A fictional therapy within a single game. Fancruft. -- Hoary 07:00, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

• It's a transcript of a radio ad or something from Vice City. Doesn't even seem to merit mention in the game's article. Delete. --Slowking Man 07:16, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio. - Vague | Rant 07:40, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agreed, this is a cut & paste copyvio of the following site. --Deathphoenix 20:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pedant 02:14, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Hopgood

Non-notable. Neutrality^talk 07:59, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity. Thryduulf 10:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, CV. Wyss 04:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 20:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

George Costanza is not Jewish, and there is no indication that his mother is.

• You're right; the Costanzas are Italian Catholics. I removed the reference to Costanza from the article. -Alexanderj 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, while the Costanzas are Italian they are not Catholic.
    • I thought I had read that the Costanzas were Catholic, but I stand corrected on that. However, they are NEVER referred to as Jewish, and Larry David had purposely kept their religion ambiguous. As such, Mrs. Costanza can hardly be cited as an example of a "Jewish mother," if her religion is never ever referred to, and she is supposed to be religiously ambiguous. Therefore, I've reverted your edit. Also, please sign your comments in the future. -Alexanderj 07:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)*
      • New York, Jewish, same thing.

Although the Italian mother stereotype is almost identical. --Krsont 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

from VfD:

Funny, but not encylopedic. Neutrality^talk 08:16, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to BJAODN. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• If it is an actual syndrome, consider a move to the wiktionary. If not, move it to BJADON Thryduulf
• Keep, it's a real stereotype; I would say stereotypes are encyclopedic. But it's not a "syndrome", so rename. And cleanup. Everyking 20:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's referenced in a paper by Richard Malott, Department of Psychology, Western Michigan University. It's clearly a term known in academic circles. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 20:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Universal stereotypes are notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 22:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to BJADON. Megan1967 04:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Given another consideration, I dont think there is anything here worth keeping. Its current form is un-encyclopaedic, Delete. Megan1967 03:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Any non-syndrome referenced as a "syndrome" should be automatically a candidate for deletion. (For example: "nice guy syndrome".) -Sean Curtin 04:53, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as a misleading, non-peer reviewed classification. This is an old joke, but it can obviously lead to unhelpful stereotyping. Wyss 04:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You should write to Woody Allen (who is Jewish of course) to reprimand him for making a film about a nagging Jewish mother, (his segment of New York Stories). Philip 07:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Woody Allen didn't submit an article to WP entitled Jewish Mother Syndrome, for starters. Wyss 07:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • And what else? That is a totally irrelevant non-argument. Philip 18:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Really? You're the one who brought up Woody Allen. Are you now saying he's irrelevant? Wyss 21:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. --fvw* 07:21, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Since when is this stereotype reserved for Jewish mothers? What about Asian Mother Syndrome? Delete as neologism. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably well before Dan Greenburg's best-selling 1964 book, How to Be a Jewish Mother, which popularized the stereotype. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is intended to be considered a medical condition. "Syndrome" is a totally empty word, but there is an article to be written about the cultural presentation of the Jewish mother, and as this has been allocated to the correct category, someone might do it. Some of the votes for deletion are pure political correctness, which by definition is POV Philip 18:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Use of the word syndrome implies a clinical origin. Wyss 21:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and s/syndrome/stereotype. GRider\^talk 22:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Stereotype#Common stereotypical characters. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Stereotype#Common stereotypical characters. This is a stereotype, not a proper medical syndrome. Psychonaut 01:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Jewish mother or similar and redirect to Stereotype#Common stereotypical characters; that way, searches on the established phrase "Jewish mother" can find it. Acb 04:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Acb. At the very least, "Jewish mother" belongs in Wiktionary. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:41, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Stereotype#Common stereotypical characters. This is a well-established stereotype, but I doubt that it needs a separate article. Edeans 05:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] October rewrites

The original article whose content was basically "Jewish mothers are great, but Woody Allen created this horrible stereotype" was pretty flawed. I changed it to be about the stereotype itself and got rid of the "syndrome" (it is not a clinical syndrome) in favor of "stereotype". I don't know if this should be kept — personally I think this is a little too close to an ethnic stereotype that, whatever its prevalence in Jewish comedy, is a little too close to other unfavorable ethnic stereotypes for my personal comfort. But anyway, I thought I would just explain myself. --Fastfission 00:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish mother

I fail to see how this is relevant to the Jewish Mother stereotype used by comedians, so I removed it. Feel free to revert, I just don't see how it is relevant. There are lots of stereotypes based on this set of characteristics, and it would be tiresome and perhaps impossible to list them all.

[edit] A possible psychiatrical explanation

Could it be that they're just trying to compensate their incapacity to protect their sons from genital mutilation? - Stormwatch 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotype?

As a Jew, I went down the list of characteristics and checked each one off as true. At what point does this become the kind of generalized exaggeration we associate with the word "stereotype"? Maybe it should read "Jewish mother FACTS".

             Agreed!

[edit] George Costanza

While George Costanza's father is definitely Italian and Catholic, no indication is made whether or not the mother is Jewish. However, throughout the course of the show, Mrs. Costanza fits the mold of a stereotypical Jewish mother as much as (or even more than) Mrs. Seinfeld. According to afew accounts, whenever the actress playing Mrs. Costanza aksed what religion her character was supposed to be, she never got a straight answer.

If she is Jewish, it would mean the George Costanza is also through because Judaism is passed on through the mother. If not, then George too is obviously not Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddy23 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	Hong Kong Portal This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project!
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Hong Kong To-do: edit purge Clean up all MTR station pages. They are literally all over the place. Two model pages are Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. They each describe a feature special to the station, Station layout, exit, and connections, as well as neighbouring stations and the station "box". We will also need plenty of updated pictures (e.g. removing all KCR-related images except those on the KCR article). Check that all pages have basically the same language structure as Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. Links to location maps are good too. (Should also perform these checks on Chinese Wikipedia.) Clean-up pages that link with TVB, especially its series pages.

from VfD:

I am planning to expand this article but then I read about "Do Wikis that have very low Alexa rankings merit inclusion? - No" in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents and then I thought maybe it would not survive VfD. Hence this vote. --JuntungWu 15:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The Alexa rank is #138... http://www.alexa.com/data/details?url=miniforum.org so it seems pretty safe on that front at least. Starblind 19:13, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep; atlest one lower Alexa-ranked website has an entry in the encyclopedia :) Dunc|☺ 20:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Alexa's no indicator of anything but 117,000 members makes an article. Wyss 04:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based on the assumption that you plan to expand the article. :-) --Deathphoenix 20:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MiniforumLogo.gif

Image:MiniforumLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Staw

Suspiciously like a slander/joke page. --LeeHunter 16:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Both articles listed are real, but credited to someone else. Assume joke unless more info arises. Starblind 18:46, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Brachioproctic? Cute. Delete as joke, potential libel. Shimeru 23:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy has already been speedied twice in last 48 hours. article changes each time. in the last version, staw was a gay porn worker. Michael Ward 03:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as recurring vandalism, possible libel. Wyss 04:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I've speedy deleted this as abusive. This is a speedy delete under the vandalism criteria.-gadfium 05:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

	Association football Portal The article on Wikipedia Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 10 is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the WikiProject on Argentine football.

from VfD:

This is a blank page, save for a category link.
Unless it can be expanded (even to a stub) I propose it should be deleted and left as a red-link if anything links to it. Thryduulf 18:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC). note: I have now withdrawn this proposal to delete. See below. Thryduulf 16:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is now a decent, if basic, stub. Keep Smoddy | Talk 23:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now as a stub, but needs to be expanded to establish notoriety other than he plays football. 23skidoo 01:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notability. Megan1967 04:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability provided, if the sportos want this, I'll be outvoted. I was... Keep.Wyss 04:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the more notable Argentine footballers. Has been compared to Diego Maradona on more than one occasion. Xezbeth 06:00, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. Paul August ☎ 06:16, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No one who knows about football would vote to delete this. The list of clubs played for is evidence of notability, but his notability extends way beyond that. This is a guy who has played about a hundred times for one of the top 2 or 3 footballing nations. It is very disappointing to see votes for deletion of entries like this from people who obviously neither know the subject nor have troubled themselves to do any research. Philip 07:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do watch these votes, and change them when I'm wrong. Wyss 07:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, No harm no foul ;-) Paul August ☎ 14:43, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep Extremely notable. --JuntungWu 12:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I put this up for deletion when I came accross a blank page about someone I'd never heard of (I'm not a major football fan, as you might have guessed by now!). I said it should be deleted Unless it can expanded - it has certainly now been expanded so I withdraw my proposal to delete this article. Thryduulf 16:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

^^LMAO^^

[edit] Committee for a Unified Labor Tendency

No such tendency exists --Sesel 20:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• it certainly fails the google test, and with a "best showing ever in an American presidential election in 2004, winning a total of twelve votes among the three states" it doesn't seem notable that way (unless no other party got fewer votes?). I'm assuming therefore that its either advertising or vanity, but the author has gone to a lot more effort than I'm used to seeing for either of these. They would probably be best pointed in the direction of some cheap/free webhosting. Maybe that way they'll get more than 12 votes in 2008? weak delete Thryduulf 01:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fails Google Test. Megan1967 04:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity political ad. More people prolly voted for Mickey Mouse. Wyss 04:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I think it is supposed to be a joke (acronym is C.U.L.T.) --Sesel 20:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Pretty funny, at least to those of us involved in left politics. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skiadas

I have just cleaned this article up a bit. However, it reads like a family history, despite the references. I am not quite sure what to do with this. I think weak delete, but I think some community consensus is required. User:Smoddy | User talk:Smoddy 22:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting mix of dictdef and genealogy, delete. --fvw* 22:58, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Vlassis Skiadas seems potentially interesting. Unfortunate that the name was changed "for an unknown reason." Shimeru 23:42, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd probably move it to the wiktionary if it meets the criteria there? Part of me wonders whether someone could base an article on it though. Abstain for now, but I'll dismount the fence if anything becomes clearer. Thryduulf 00:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, genealogy, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, plain genealogy. Wyss 04:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Resynchronization

Hugely unnotable, not any chance of becoming so. It could be merged into some Star Wars article, but I doubt it's even notable enough for that. Smoddy | Talk 23:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (speedily) (William M. Connolley 23:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC))
• Delete This event was the basis of the Empire's calendar, their year 0, like our calendar uses the birth of Christ. Might warrant a mention in one of the other Star Wars articles, but absolutely does NOT need an article of its own. Starblind 23:55, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't know enough about Star Wars to say whether or not it merits inclusion in a more generic article (In total I've seen about 5 minutes of one of the films), but its not worthy of a whole article to itself. -Thryduulf 00:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with some other relevant Star Wars article. 23skidoo 01:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 01:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, anything useable to Star Wars, then add redirect. Megan1967 04:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this Skywalker cruft. Wyss 04:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was speedy deleted at 01:20, 11 Jan 2005 by Rmhermen. Megan1967's "merge" vote establishes that the speedy delete was not non-controversial. Further, I do not believe it met the strict criteria for speedy deletion. Temporarily restored in order to allow the VfD vote to continue. No vote. Rossami (talk) 00:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Rossami was quite correct to do this. Rmhermen 16:41, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree. Good call, Rossami. People seem to be awful quick on the trigger with their speedies lately, not sure why. VfDs are cheap and don't hurt anyone. Starblind 17:45, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein

I don't think I really need to say more. This thing ought to be speedied, but it can't. Yet. Smoddy | Talk 23:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --fvw* 23:51, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, stub, non-notable, possibly nonsense, need I go on? Thryduulf 00:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - where are all these nonsense writers coming from? 23skidoo 01:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 01:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 04:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. As written, I think it qualifies as a CSD for vandalism. --Deathphoenix 20:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back-up friend

The article contains no substance, is POV, and is about a "term" that gets less than 400 hits on Google.

• This is the entire text: "A back-up friend is a person with whom one is not really close friends, but who would be there for you to hang out with should your other, more desirable companions desert you. A back-up friend is usually someone who is not very popular, and though certainly quite tolerable to be around, spending a lengthy amount of time with this person is unsafe and may cause acute depression." Johntex 03:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Don't back this one up for the next server switch. Delete. hfool/Roast me 03:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity rant, deep [sic] thoughts, misleading dicdef, yawn. Wyss 04:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary at best, essay & personal research at worst. I say worst. --Deathphoenix 20:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly useless really. — PMcM 23:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this sad article. I suggest psychotherapy for the author. really. Pedant 02:16, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• I don't know if psychotherapy is in order here, but deletion certainly is. Edeans 06:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a schoolkid-terminology site. This is the kind of crap you would see on a psychiatry website. --WikiFan04 02:40, 20 Jan 2005 (CST)