Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 12

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Samahan ng mga Mag-aaral sa Sikolohiya

Another one removed from speedy deletion. Looking at the De La Salle University article the organisation obscurely appears to exist, so it's a matter of whether it's notable enough to stand alone requiring cleanup or whether it should be deleted. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, campuscruft. Wyss 06:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with De La Salle University until it has grown into an article. It's too minor for an article of its own. 131.211.210.157 10:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Above is mine, was somehow logged out earlier. Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any useful information with De La Salle University. The organisation as a whole is too non-notable to warrant its own article. --Deathphoenix 14:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

[edit] Santa Claus Lane

It's a CD advertising. JoaoRicardo 06:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the advertising and added a reference to the only appropriate review I could find. Weak keep. Tuf-Kat 07:09, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Any Hilary Duff album is notable enough, even an early Christmas album. Everyking 09:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Her other albums are here, and aren't being threatened with deletion, so why not this one? Dtobias 12:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This was originally like this, so I think the nomination was reasonable. Tuf-Kat 16:08, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now a reasonable article, albeit short and likely (but not inevitably) to stay that way. Andrewa 01:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, I still dont agree Hilary Duff is notable enough to have every one of her albums listed. And I still dont think this article in its present form is worthy enough to have an article on its own. Megan1967 03:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, merge content to her main article. Wyss 06:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough album. Hope to add more info to article over weekend. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - and I hope albums aren't the new high schools. Samaritan 10:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not advertizing, and while Hilary Duff may not be well-known as a singer to everyone. Her acting career should stuff related to her more notable. Also, the album contains collaborations with Christina Milian and Lil Romeo, who are themselves notable. Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep, agree with Samaritan. —RaD Man (talk) 23:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] York Road

from VfD:

Even if the road is notable (I don't think it is) this isn't the article to tell about it. DCEdwards1966 02:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or transfer to Wikitravel. Gazpacho 02:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Keep as rewritten. Do not disrupt to illustrate a point Gazpacho 08:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this roadcruft. Wyss 06:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lot's of fantasy trivia is let through, so this real world article should make the grade. I will categorise it to Baltimore Philip 06:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, probably move to Maryland State Highway 45. I'm currently editing it to remove a lot of the crap and include more facts. And all of you who are voting delete, how about Greenway (Middle-earth)? --SPUI 10:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • And modified to remove the crap and include more history. --SPUI 10:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete i know york road, been up and down it pleanty of times, but this article is just fluf, to use an appropate word. Bee nice to see if come one could write up a real article, with some history. As it is an important Baltimore area road. --Boothy443 10:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article needs to be improved, not deleted. RustyCale 12:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - move to Maryland State Highway 45 and dab York Road. zoney ♣ talk 13:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 14:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not Notable. Maybe there is something of note about this road, but the article doesn't say any of it. In it's current state, it's not worth keeping. --RoySmith 14:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, it's not notable? It was once the main road north from Baltimore (US 111). It's also part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways. --SPUI 18:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Somehow I doubt this is the only York Road in the world. There is nothing inherently notable about it. Delete. If it's kept, it needs to be disambiguated. RickK 00:14, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you even go to the article? See what else is in bold? Read my comment above? This is Maryland State Highway 45. It should be moved there. Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways encompasses this article. --SPUI 04:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete tarmac.Dr Zen 00:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Maryland State Highway 45. There are far too many York Roads for this to occupy it. older≠wiser 13:51, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - Delete --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curious Chinese customs

POV collection of claims of dubious authenticity. Even if true, the article's aim seems more suited to a trivia site than an encyclopedia. Niteowlneils 01:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- ran (talk) 02:04, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

  I've speedied it. (The content of the article was copied from a century-old text on Project Gutenberg in any case.) -- ran (talk) 02:15, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I really don't see how this qualified as a candidate for speedy deletion, let alone why you deleted then restored then deleted it in the space of twenty minutes. This seems to me to be a classic case of what should go through the normal deletion process. I'm not restoring it for the moment, but if any non-sysop wants to see it I think we should. No vote as yet. Andrewa 03:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I restored it the first time because I thought that some of it, perhaps, would be helpful to us in writing articles related to the history of China. But afterwards I found that the thing had been copied wholesale from a 180-year-old text on Project Gutenberg. The article talks about Imperial China in the present tense and is outdated to a ridiculous degree. Since it is already on Project Gutenberg there really is no reason why we should "save a copy" on Wikipedia for reference. This is why I speedied it the second time. ran (talk) 04:23, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't believe this article is salvageble. any information will have to be verified (some of the evidence seems rather anecdotal) and re-written (the language used is offensive). we're as good as starting from scratch.--Jiang 04:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the vote is still on I've restored it: Curious Chinese customs. -- ran (talk) 04:44, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• delete - "From the 'Canton Register,' the first English Newspaper published in China" dated 1828. The information is outdated, Anglo-centric, bordering on racist, and probably unreliable. "great imperial ceremony of knocking the forehead on the ground thrice three times..." "...pray for felicity towards some domestic idol" this won't be of any use for our purposes... --Jiang 04:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obsolete, probably somewhat mistaken, PoV information, unhelpful, and seems unreliable even as a potentially cleaned up historical ramble. Wyss 06:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently, no useful content. Andrewa 08:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Assumes the Chinese are still stuck in 1828?insulting. Stombs 09:14, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• delete agree with above comments. --Boothy443 09:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Copied from [6] Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources -- Curps 09:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as copyvio. Samaritan 10:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Even if it were a copyvio, copyvios are not speedy delete candidates. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • *sheepish* Oops. Thanks for the clarification! Samaritan 19:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is it potentially copyvio (although I think the copyvio has expired in the text), but the title itself is POV and implies that these customs are still valid. The original source is historical and parts of this article are obsolete now. --Deathphoenix 15:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It's not a copyvio if the source is from 1828. Still, at best it is a transwiki to Wikisource. --TenOfAllTrades 15:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. PTMPA. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a primary source, and a spectacularly nn one at that. Szyslak 10:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. dpol 10:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Obsolete, useless factoids. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 02:45, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

	This non-article page is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). Edit this message Ice hockey Portal
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating.

from VfD:

There is no need for a separate article here. DCEdwards1966 02:58, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. JYolkowski 03:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) (to Atlanta Thrashers, in case it wasn't obvious JYolkowski 03:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC))
  • Changing my vote to Keep based on SimonP's comment, although I wouldn't mind seeing these merged anyway. JYolkowski 22:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hardly any content, no need for a separate article on this when it can be merged. Megan1967 04:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article, pseudo fork. Wyss 06:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, every other NHL team has such a list. - SimonP 06:13, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep given this, though I could live with them all merging back. Samaritan 10:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicate. Abstain until policy is sorted out. --Viriditas | Talk 07:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based on SimonP's comments, but I agree with Samaritan that these lists are better merged into the team articles. However, I have a feeling that these lists were created to shrink down the size of the team articles. --Deathphoenix 15:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fully agree with Deathphoenix above. Alarm 19:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] July rising

As a member of the band, I would like to state that we had nothing to do with it. A friend set it up, so band vanity is completely incorrect. I agree that we don't need a wikipedia page so I have no quarms with its deletion - Joe

Band vanity written in the second-person. Is second-person right? Google results look reasonable until you realize that only the first result is actually the band, while the rest is just a lucky fluke of the words coming together. "july rising" mirfield (the band hails from there) gives no results. Delete. - Vague | Rant 03:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually that's first-person plural, not second person. Second person would be "you". And, yes, obvious vanity, not notable, delete. --Kelly Martin 03:39, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not enough happening yet. Wyss 06:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. --Viriditas | Talk 07:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, vanity, copyvio (based on the "Taken from www.julyrising.com" text). --Deathphoenix 15:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 23:57, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

from VfD:

An essay about a single song by Bob Dylan, which says it's Dylan's version of the song "Norweigan [sic] Wood", or maybe "Norwiegan [sic] Wood". I realize that Dylanology is still a booming business, but this song is no "Blowing in the Wind" and I wonder if it's all that notable; meanwhile, this article as it now stands contains what I'll charitably term "original research". -- Hoary 03:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

• Delete, a song that is barely notable, certainly looks like a POV original research. Megan1967 04:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- The article obviously needs some major cleanup but the article on Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) makes mentions that this song was a response to "Norwegian Wood". DCEdwards1966 05:33, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Norwegian Wood notes this topic. Wyss 06:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Added cleanup header. --Viriditas | Talk 06:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Trust cleanup and keep. Samaritan 10:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Would it be too much to compare this with Back in the U.S.S.R.? Keep. Cool Hand Luke 10:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 13:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Definitely needs cleanup. Perhaps the song isn't that notable, but given Dylan's notability, by extension any song he wrote is certainly of some interest. Just merging it into Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) (note: I fixed the link to bypass the redirect) would not do it justice. --RoySmith 14:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• comment, no vote. If this was Dylanology, you'd get about four pages of detailed discussion on whether it came before, after, or simultaneously with Norwegian Wood. (There's an elaborate story involving hotel rooms and rubbish bins, I think, but I forget the details). The linkage between them is, um, canonically accepted... or however you might want to term that; not research original to the article author, anyway. Is a random Dylan song encyclopedic? Couldn't comment. What do we have for precedent? (Tending towards a week keep with a rewrite, but...) Shimgray 17:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Of course a Dylan song is notable Philip 03:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep - David Gerard 20:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a crappy article, but doesn't deserve deletion, I think. Tuf-Kat 23:58, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Serious Editing Needed, this article is just not good and is more opinion than anything. If one thing needs to go, it's the "direct message to Lennon" bit. The song is notable not only because of its relation to "Norwegian Wood" but also because there's a Byrds song with the same melody. I don't know which song, but there was a George Harrison interview in Guitar World quite a while ago where he reflects on how that melody was being passed around between several bands. Dylan also played it during the acoustic half of the 65-66 tour. The acoustic set included "Desolation Row," "Mr. Tambourine Man," "Visions of Johanna," and "Just Like A Woman" which are all very strong songs, so he apparently thinks highly of "4th Time Around."--68.49.56.238 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As a huge Dylan-fan i've pondered over the lyrics a lot, and my interpretation is a lot different. As I see it, the narrator in the song visits a prostitute since his wife, being disabled, is unable to satisfy him sexually. (...I tried to make sense/ out of that picture of you in your wheelchair...) Upon realising that the prostitute and his wife know each other he panics for fear the wife might find out, and strangles the prostitute to death. Later he confesses to his wife, with no sign of remorse. If this interpretation is correct the title of the song would also make sense, since the story takes place during the fourth visit to the prostitute. I was just wondering if anybody else has thought the same thing about the song. JesperLærke 02:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] boasting

Someone enjoys using the word "boasts" a lot and wrongly.

"4th Time Around" was commonly speculated to be a response to The Beatles' song "Norwegian Wood" - written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney for their 1965 album Rubber Soul - as the two tracks boast a reasonably similar melody and lyrical premise. "Norwegian Wood" was considered an artistic leap for Lennon, as it was his earliest story-song and boasted an obvious Dylan-influence.

FIXED. Whether "boasting" can be used in this context is debatable... More importantly, it was stylistically horrible. -- GWO (talk)

[edit] Xentrix

As the article states, the text of the article was copied from Lyrics of Boards of Canada. No need for a seperate article. DCEdwards1966 04:04, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Boards of Canada is one of my favorite bands, but a single track doesn't deserve an encyclopedia article except in extreme circumstances. --foobaz·✐ 04:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, article duplication. Megan1967 04:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a pseudo fork. Wyss 06:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicate. --Viriditas | Talk 06:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 13:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate fork. --Deathphoenix 15:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as it doesn't even make sense unless you know what it is talking about already. Tuf-Kat 00:01, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep now links to a British well-known thrash metal band Spearhead 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tom Sutter

[edit] Maria Louisa Bustill

from VfD:

Mother of someone quite notable (Paul Robeson), and daughter of someone mildly notable (Charles Hicks Bustill), but seems to have no notability of her own. 55 hits, most about Paul. Niteowlneils 04:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, genealogy. Wyss 06:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. --Viriditas | Talk 06:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article, and sufficiently notable IMO. If we merge and redirect to Paul Robeson I think that article would get cumbersome. Andrewa 10:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; I agree. Samaritan 10:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• A person could make a case that she is very marginally notable. I would not be much inclined to agree, but the article's quality almost sways me to keep. No vote, though. Everyking 12:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 13:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough and a good article. --Deathphoenix 15:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in and of herself. And when did "American Quaker" become a race or an ethnicity? RickK 00:21, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, while Paul Robeson is notable, his mother was not. It also looks like geneaology. Quakerism is not a race or ethnicity. Megan1967 00:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Philip 03:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Pedant
• Keep or merge to Paul Robeson, but don't lose this information. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This sort of article is why 'notability' is not a primary criterion for deletion - David Gerard 20:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it and do not merge. —RaD Man (talk) 23:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, no matter whose mother she is. JoaoRicardo 03:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or at least merge with something. A non-white woman going to university in the U.S. in the 1870s seems remakrable in itself (although I don't know how common that was) and together with the family connections creates perhaps some mild notability. / up+land 08:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] William Drew Robeson I

from VfD:

Father of someone quite notable (Paul Robeson), but seems to have no notability of his own (at least I don't think being an escaped slave is inherently encyclopedic). Three hits. Niteowlneils 04:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, genealogy. Wyss 06:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable person. --Viriditas | Talk 06:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fascinating article, quite notable enough IMO. Andrewa 10:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; I agree. Samaritan 10:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Does not seem notable enough, to be honest, but it's pretty thorough and well-written, and I'd hate to see it deleted...no vote. Everyking 12:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems vaguely notable. Sentiment similar to that of Everyking. --JuntungWu 12:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Also we have an article on William H. Gates, Sr. which almost seems only notable (to most anyway) as Dad of Bill Gates. --JuntungWu 13:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough and a good article. --Deathphoenix 15:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Despite being a very well-written biography, I don't think he meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia is not a genealogical record. Would this be appropriate to transwiki to Wikibooks? Rossami (talk) 23:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in and of himself. RickK 00:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, while Paul Robeson is notable, his father was not. It also looks like geneaology. Megan1967 00:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Philip 03:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems to me that someone who actually travelled on the Underground railroad is more notable than the Bajoran wormhole. well written and harmless article 66.245.209.124 07:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)Pedant
• Keep or merge to Paul Robeson, but don't lose this information. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:14, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is an example of why 'notability' still isn't actually a listed criterion for deletion - David Gerard 20:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it and do not merge. —RaD Man (talk) 23:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, no matter whose father he is. And Gates' father could be here as well. JoaoRicardo 03:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Soundwin Network Inc.

Looks like advertising to me, plus it's got no context (what is VoIP?) and makes little sense. PMC 05:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: See VoIP. Andrewa 10:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• With an email address of sales@soundwin.com at the bottom and all that first person plural prose... Delete, ad, almost a speedy. Wyss 05:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. --Viriditas | Talk 06:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete! 100% Sure it's an ad. [This is by anon 82.154.192.99. --jni 08:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)]

• Delete. Wikispam. jni 08:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this spam. Samaritan 10:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, An ad if I ever saw one. Inter 12:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 13:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for blatant advertising. --Deathphoenix 15:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not quite the most blatant advertising I've seen here, but approaching it. Thryduulf 22:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious advertising. ÅrУnT^†_∈ 23:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Written in the first person in a language other than English - and this is the English Wiki. -- RHaworth 07:19, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

from VfD:

Delete. The game doesn't exist, and probably never will. Not only that, but FireRed and LeafGreen were released months ago. --Evice 06:54, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with Pokémon LeafGreen if true--ZayZayEM 08:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. Inter 13:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested if speculation received enough attention. Otherwise delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 13:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge useful information with Pokémon LeafGreen if true, as suggested above. --Deathphoenix 15:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge useful information with Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 21:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • As an added comment, I'd like to point out that the current revision of the Marill article mentions, in passing, that "At first, many thought it was related to Pikachu and named it Pikablu. This, however, is not the case." Pokémon WaterBlue seems to be a similar case to me. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 06:31, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, game never existed, Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Megan1967 00:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. The information can be added to Pokémon LeafGreen as interesting note.Tphi 11:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Daniel Tingstrom

Vanity page. Delete.-gadfium 07:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even an effort.--ZayZayEM 08:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Contributor himself has made a comment on the page that he wishes it to be deleted. I'd say that's a pretty firm delete. Stombs 09:22, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete amicably. Should be a speedy as a test, but no great damage in letting the vote go through. Andrewa 10:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to user:Krunoce. Dunc|☺ 11:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy and then Delete, as said above. Commendable that he took the time to remedy the mistake. Welcome to Wikipedia Daniel. Inter 12:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy as suggested above. I've made a lot of "delete information appropriate for a user page" comments; it would be simpler just to use this verb. :-) --Deathphoenix 15:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted per case 2 - user test page - and by request of the author. Evidence - user blanked the page and replaced it with a polite "please delete" comment. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space Shuttle Phoenix

About supposed replacement to Space Shuttle Columbia. Evil Monkey → Talk 07:24, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:Isn't this the name of the replacement? I'm sure I've heard that elsewhere. If so the article could use some work. If not, delete.--ZayZayEM 08:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • NASA have a Mars lander which will be launched in 2007 called Phoenix. I've done a Google search to make sure that I haven't missed anything about a replacement Shuttle being built, but NASA have always said that they will not be building a replacement for Columbia. The only reason they could build Endeavour to replace Challenger was that they already had some spare parts. You may be thinking of EADS Phoenix which is a proposed European shuttle. Evil Monkey → Talk 08:34, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah yes Mars Lander is what I was thinking of, I think. Delete.--ZayZayEM 12:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There is only one option to get another shuttle, that's to refurbish Space Shuttle Enterprise (OV-101) Which was originally supposed to fly instead of Challenger (OV-99) anyways 132.205.45.148 22:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Though according to the Space Shuttle Enterprise article, it was shaken pretty much to destruction to see where the weak points were. Would be cheaper to build one from scratch, apart from the fact that from memory it isn't that space worthy, with old avionics, electronics and not that air tight. Evil Monkey → Talk 23:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think the article page is wrong, but I come up with sources that say one way and sources that say the other. In any case, Challenger, Columbia and Enterprise were heavily used in testing. The only reason Challenger was refit instead was because it was cheaper to build it into a shuttle, than to open up a completed shuttle and refurbish it. It was the same reason why they built Endeavour. 132.205.45.110 20:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No hits for "OV-106" on NASA's website. That was a name proposed by Boeing (the name "Phoenix" wasn't mentioned), but it ain't gonna happen. Raven42 09:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No mention of this on any of the NASA sites. There are a couple of Google hits that tell a similar story and seem to be some sort of role-playing game, and Phoenix was one of the rejected names for Endeavour. But this article has no useful content as far as I can see, and is the work of an anon with no other contributions. Andrewa 09:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sure Phoenix wouldn't even fall into the standard naming categories (ships of exploration, basically); but that aside... Building OV-106 was briefly proposed by Boeing in early 2003, and was probably studied for a few weeks. However, there are no plans to build one, no strategic plan requiring one (the Shuttles are being withdrawn over the next few years - "set to begin in summer 2007" would mean it would have first flight in about 2010 - and they only need a three-orbiter fleet, anyhow)... it's nonsense. It may well be a garbled misunderstanding of the OV-2xx idea (a "moldline-compatible" redesigned Shuttle II), but I don't think even that got much play other than being kicked around in space-policy circles for a bit. Delete. Shimgray 13:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• If there is no evidence of this (i.e. NASA say it is) then would this be a speedy delete as patently incorrect? Average Earthman 16:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The fact that we had to do this much research is a good indicator that it was not "patently incorrect". The decision to list it here was correct. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as possible misinformation. I like the name, though. --Deathphoenix 17:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated above. If by chance NASA does announce a new shuttle there'll be plenty of opportunity to add an article then. I kinda hope they do go with the Phoenix name, though. 23skidoo 21:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vaporspacecraft (never mind NASA probably won't build another one of those engineering disasters). Wyss 23:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stibo Catalog

Advert. Text in first person plural form. jni 08:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam. Stombs 09:21, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikispam. Andrewa 09:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; it is spam. Samaritan 10:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Ah, the whiff of spam. Inter 13:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant ad: "At Stibo Catalog we specialize...". Oh, and "All content from Stibo Catalog Website http://www.stibocatalog.com" means it's copyvio too. --Deathphoenix 17:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam and stupid name. (Ok, that isn't a criteria, but spam is). Starblind 18:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, ad with a live link, copyvio, spam in a can. Wyss 23:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 16:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If only all CfD could be this obviously spammy. --InShaneee 16:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Best rated theme parks in the UK

Quite a bit of vandalism has come from this IP, which I guess is a shared computer in University Of East London. This one is well intentioned, but not really encyclopedic. Even if it were improved with more authoratative surveys, it would be one for WikiTravel. It could be turned into List of UK theme parks. Curiously, the external links and the and of the theme park article are all in the UK. -- Solipsist 09:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup, and move (no redirect) per Solipsist. Samaritan 10:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this potentially POV list. --Deathphoenix 17:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm getting major deja vu here because there is an identical article called Top ten list of theme parks that is also up for VfD. 23skidoo 21:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 23:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic POV list. Megan1967 00:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	This non-article page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
NA	Non-article pages do not require a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

from VfD:

What is this article ? Even history shows this article was never something. Am not sure this could be a speedy. Gtabary 10:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The history actually gives one a massive clue as to what the article is. Check for copyright violation (source text was suspect because it resembled a copy&paste of the source of another web page); Move to Angel Gabriel (ship); and disambiguate Angel Gabriel (or possibly Angel). Uncle G 11:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Well thanks. I could not make sense at all of it. Did no even understand if it was a hoax, or the subject of it. I guess I was just enormously missled by the title. Was probably expecting un-cousiously an article about an angel named Gabriel. Is this vfd still valid then ? Gtabary 11:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The biblical Gabriel is an archangel. See also Gabriel (archangel) Starblind 18:34, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain, The article is a little more than a passenger manifest, but I'll leave this one to people more knowledgeable in these matters. Inter 12:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Plenty of ways to deal with this without deletion. The actual Angel with this name deserves an article at the very least. Remember you don't have to wait for the end of a VFD vote to improve, move or redirect an article. DJ Clayworth 18:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Gabriel was actually an archangel, and does have an extensive article at Gabriel (archangel) Starblind 18:31, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure. Maybe this article should be a redirect to it, or a disambiguation page, or something. Not a delete. DJ Clayworth 19:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • (I've added a disambig link to Gabriel at the top; I'd suggest, if the vote is to delete, turning the page into a redirect). Otherwise, hmm. Ships have been treated as having a pretty low bound for notability - we're slowly moving towards having an entry for everything of destroyer-size and up that's been in the USN or RN - but as it stands this has no real information on it except to a genealogist, which looks like the source of the information. Is she independently notable? Might be. [8] mentions she was built for Raleigh; [9] suggests the wreck is of archaeological interest; [10] indicates someone wrote a thesis on it. Not a useful page as-is, but potentially encyclopedic, at a guess. Shimgray 03:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lots of ships sink. Gamaliel 18:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 23:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough to warrant an article. Megan1967 00:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Angel Gabriel (ship), disambiguate, and keep. It's important enough on a local (Maine) level to have a historical plaque detailing the wreck. At least one source claims it's the first ship to sink while bringing immigrants from England to America; I haven't managed to verify that yet, but if true, that makes it noteworthy on a larger scale. Shimeru 21:37, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I can't think of a better place for a ship that sank in 1635 than an encyclopedia. The Steve 07:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well... traditionally, the seabed... Shimgray 13:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this does get deleted, it should be replaced with a redirect to the angel Gabriel. -Sean Curtin 07:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Angel Gabriel (ship), disambiguate, and keep. Alarm 20:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely move. (It is much more likely that someone who types "Angel Gabriel" is thinking of the archangel than that they were thinking of a historical ship.) I would recommend just rid of the passenger list and making it a stub, though. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Sources

I believe the list of passengers was taken from http://members.aol.com/dcurtin1/gene/gabriel.htm

(right down to some odd captialization). A list of facts can not be copyrighted though the presentation can be, but this is still non-authoritative. I replaced the ditto marks with spelled out text and expanded the abbreviation abt to about. Also, there was a line break that didn't belong there (and had been compounded by putting an asterisk before it).

Some of the information on the history of the ship comes from research by nautical archaeologist Warren C. Riess (Angel Gabriel, 2001 http://www.tidewater.net/~kgal/angel.htm ISBN 0-9713438-0-2)

[edit] Ban Currency Circulation

International movement which gets zero Google hits. This is a POV essay/editorial, not encyclopedia article.

See also: LL2B, Trac, TrAcNet, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/TRACnet for related articles and discussion. jni 11:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Hoary 11:48, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
• Delete, "corruption, the cancer of our modern society" != NPOV, amongst other things. Inter 12:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - an interesting theory, but wikipedia is not the place for those, especially ones that are as POV as this one. Thryduulf 13:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV vanity. --Deathphoenix 17:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 17:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, rantish original research, vanity. Wyss 23:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV etc. Bill 21:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Promo. Commercial page Delete 62.135.55.76 07:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge, on it's own it doesn't work, but perhaps it should be merged with the Panasonic article. Also, unverified prices might not work very well. Inter 13:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Based on the layout, it looks like a copyvio, but I can't find it. Merge useful info with Panasonic until it's large enough to stand on it's own or unless size becomes an issue there. Mgm|^(talk) 13:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Well it's hardly likely to be an ad for something that hasn't been available for years. Nonetheless, it's a fork of 3DO Interactive Multiplayer and should be merged with that. Starblind 17:31, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with The 3DO Company or 3DO Interactive Multiplayer or similar 3DO articles. I disagree that it's a commercial page. It's an old console that was quite notable and has an interesting history. I remember there being a few very interesting sites about 3DO, including info on some of their products (good and bad), and why 3DO didn't succeed as well as it should have. I'll add some more comments if I find that 3DO info site. --Deathphoenix 17:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: one of the sites I found is this, but there was another that described a lot of good and bad games and described the period of time when a lot of bad games came out. It wouldn't add to this VfD, and the article is copyvio and probably POV anyways. --Deathphoenix 17:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify. What I meant is that the web article that I was looking for would be copyvio if used, and is certainly POV, not this particular article in question. --Deathphoenix 02:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio. Delete and redirect to 3DO Interactive Multiplayer. -Sean Curtin 22:12, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, then add redirect. Megan1967 00:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the 3DO was a very notable console. A few now-famous game franchises started on it. Luigi30 19:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to 3DO Interactive Multiplayer. The technical specs alone could prove quite useful. -Gapporin 03:04, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect This page seems to have little value compared with 3DO_Interactive_Multiplayer. It looks like it should be deleted immediately - there's nothing of real value to merge. The technical specs here are already covered in much greater depth over at 3DO Interactive Multiplayer. Hodg 07:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

• Talk:Religion in The Simpsons

[edit] Henrik Aas

Looks like a hoax, judging by context of webpages "rumpa mi" is used in it means "fuck me". --fvw* 17:50, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

• Delete. Odd hoax. jni 18:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, very odd. --Deathphoenix 19:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete both as silly and sneaky vandalism (seeding WP with misleading or false information). Wyss 22:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 00:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, obvious joke or hoax. Yes, "rumpa mi" returns mostly web pages in the .no domain with names like www.erotikknett.no, and sexnoveller.no - de frekkeste noveller på nettet, and Norges Sex Portal. Style is vaguely reminiscent to me of the Yopu hoax article we had a few weeks ago, but IP address doesn't match. I'm going to speedy it now, anyone who wants it restored just let me know. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Entire content of article was:

Aas, Henrik is widely know as the man in the leather outfit. A version of this legend is preserved in a late fifteenth-century manuscript, in a story called "Rumpa mi", written by the man from God knows where. As the Aasusian mythos was retold and embellished upon, Henrik's prophetic aspects were sometimes de-emphasized in favor of portraying him as a economical wizard.

• Comment, "rumpa mi" means "my butt". Inter 19:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I don't know why I didn't guess that. Are "rumpa" and the English "rump" cognates? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Trolliban

Combination of not-notable and hoax. --fvw* 17:50, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

• Delete. Google gives about 35 hits, most of which are WP mirrors or postings that mention Trolliban in passing in various discussion fora. Troll groups must generate lots of mayhem before being considered notable in Wikipedia. jni 18:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Many of those hits are because Wikipedia has had the phrase "The Trolliban" on Troll organization since 172.145.73.53 added it on June 4, 2004. (Now that The Trolliban exists, that number of hits has almost doubled.) Discussions about this article are pre-supposing that such a group actually exists. But the legitimacy of the actual existence of such a group seems based entirely upon what has previously been written on Wikipedia. Uncle G 13:18, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. I'd say trollers are pretty much non-notable by definition. Starblind 18:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual trolling groups are not encyclopedic.-gadfium 18:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough even for an inclusing in Internet trolls. Reeks of vanity. --Deathphoenix 19:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, troll vanity, prank. Wyss 22:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as we all know, wikipedia does consider individual troll groups notable, but delete anyway because they actually aren't notable no matter how desperately they seek attention to fill their otherwise empty lives. Michael Ward 02:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. If it even exists, it merits no more than a mention on the "Troll organizations" article. jdb ❋ 05:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Elite trolls indeed. What next? Elite spammers? Elite drug pushers? As Calvin's dad once said, Another day, another dollar, another irreplaceable chunk out of a finite and rapidly vanishing lifetime. How sad that these people have nothing better to do with theirs. Their petty trolling does not make them exciting, interesting or encyclopedic, and we do nobody any favours by nurturing any suggestion that it does. Andrewa 11:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Well, you know that my vote was Speedy Delete, as vandalism, because it was my {{deletebecause|joke article}} that fvw removed and replaced with a {{vfd}}. elite trolls from the 1990s? Trolluminati? It was like throwing a match onto gasoline.? Come on! This is a joke article created by 144.137.33.156 under the guise of being an attempt to make a real article out of a vandalism article created by 24.130.116.56. Uncle G 13:18, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

[edit] WikidPad

Advert for someone's software, founded on 12 Jan 2005 (actually it says 'found' on Jan 12) DJ Clayworth 18:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Smoddy | Talk 18:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obvious ad, even for a notepad on steroids. --Deathphoenix 19:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. Good idea though, anyone know of a similar freebie? It must be there somewhere. Andrewa 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, software ad. Wyss 22:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Jung

Glowing tribute to someone whose main notability is involvement in some sort of unspecified bureaucratic fuss at the Campus Greens organization. He doesn't seem notable to me, and the article is also very POV given that the first page I find on Google [11] describes Jung as part of the problem. --LeeHunter 18:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Problem or solution, it's non-notable in any reasonable encyclopedic sense. This also reeks of vanity. Starblind 18:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity better suited for a user page (Userfy?). --Deathphoenix 19:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject not sufficiently notable, article is the first and so far only contribution by this IP and possible autobiography. The fuss is some time ago now, but obviously someone still feels it. Andrewa 19:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Smoddy | Talk 21:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity self-promotion. Wyss 22:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• "Adam was raised between his grandfather's farm and St. Joseph, MO" What, in a field somewhere? Not notable. Delete. RickK 00:32, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, thy name is Jung.Weaponofmassinstruction 06:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Marshall

Obvious hoax. jni 18:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. I have a couple of inventions deemed classified by all eight countries last year and will not be publically released until 2054. --Deathphoenix 19:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted, candidate for speedy deletion case #2 or #3. Entire contents: This man is one real genious! He has invented invetions such as the "hydro space-craft", the "Self driving car", the "polo sweet" and "Football". Unfortunatly six of the eight most powerfull countries in the world have deemed the first two inventions "Classified" and will not be publically released until 2055. This is such obvious nonsense that it is either a test or pure vandalism. This IP's other recent contributions have been reverted as vandalism. Andrewa 19:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robbie humphreys

Puerile vanity. I can't believe we don't yet have a policy that allows me to delete this immediately. DJ Clayworth 19:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's a childish personal attack on the subject, and libellous. Speedy it. Kappa 20:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. IMO it would be a valid candidate for speedy deletion under case #2 (test) or #3 (pure vandalism), we don't need to know which it is as either way it goes. Andrewa 20:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete vandalism and anti-vanity. I agree with Andrewa that this would be a CSD under #3. --Deathphoenix 21:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as vandalism and libel (obvious middle school prank). Wyss 22:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for reasons stated. Some idiot is getting his laughs at someone else's expense. - Lucky 6.9 22:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as per consensus above. Andrewa 23:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) from VfD:

This is nonsense. Funny nonsense. But nonsense. Or it could be a vanity... Smoddy | Talk 20:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Move to BJAODN. --Deathphoenix 21:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is a show currently running on Cartoon Network, as mentioned. Needs work, and should maybe be moved to Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, but it IS a real show and, IMHO, relevant. Just occured to me that Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends exists, and there doesn't seem to be anything here mergeable. Changing to Delete --InShaneee 21:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Sean Curtin 22:14, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fiction, not an article. Wyss 22:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. There's already a good extant article and the lack of an apostrophe in "Fosters" might be a common misspelling of the title. Whoever wrote the article probably typed the title incorrectly in the first place and filled in the resulting red link. - Lucky 6.9 22:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect.Cookiecaper 23:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Rossami (talk) 23:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Megan1967 00:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Samaritan 21:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Please note that this was not nonsense, or fiction; it was instead information about a fiction which unfortunately neglected to note its context. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

from VfD:

Move I want to move the article to the VIA C3 page. Each version of the Athlon is covered on the same page. You can't create a newpage every time VIA update their processor range. Timharwoodx 15:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• This nomination was accidentally set up in a way that made it appear to be a comment at the bottom of the previous discussion thread. I've fixed the header. I also moved it down a day so it can get the full 5 day discussion now that it's visible. (no vote.) Rossami (talk) 21:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move it. Wyss 22:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move. Thryduulf 22:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC).
• Move as directed. --Deathphoenix 01:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: if you just want to merge the two articles together, you can go ahead and do it - there's no need to bring it to VfD. Just copy and paste the text from one into the other, and turn VIA C7 into a redirect. Also, I notice there's a VIA C4 article, which should presumably be dealt with the same way. sjorford 21:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks guys, still learning the trade. I really wanted to fill out the write up on VIA's approach to chip architecture, as their low power low cost approach, may well shortly become the way to do it. I think its noteworthy. I have now cut and pasted the content. Just trying not to be rude. Timharwoodx 00:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Design methodology

Why is this highly informative text being constantly removed? On what grounds? Please post and explain your reasons. Timharwoodx 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The VIA C7 soldiers on.

The entirely VIA C7-M based HP 2133 ultraportable subnotebook has just debuted and ZDNet, PCMag, etc. are all praising it. HP choose VIA C for unbeatable price-value balance, even though Intel's Atom is available since 2nd of April. This is a victory for VIA CPU team. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

^That just sound like a bunch of marketing mumble jumble. The CPU is hot and power hungry. It may be faster than the underclocked celeron in the eeePC, but that isn't saying much. read the following link: http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9914927-1.html Explanation straight from horse's mouth. It may be a victory for Via because of the circumstances, but not because of they had a superior CPU for the price. It is just acceptable in performance for basic computing needs. --118.165.207.210 (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Then what? This tiny little machine is really unsuitable for creative professional work or hardcore gaming, no matter how much horsepower the CPU has, due to obvious lack of LCD screen space. Besides web browsing, word and excel work, video chat and movie playback the only thing it needs is to be able to run modern antivirus without bogging down the system too much (Windows is too fragile to browse the web without defences). I recommend testing with Symantec-Norton or F-Secure protection suites, because those are famous for their high system burden. If the HP2133 survives daily workload chore on WinXP SP3 with antivirus protection on then is it OK for general school use. Don't be a maximalist! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bram Crevits

I can't find any evidence of notability. --fvw* 21:25, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity self-promotion. Wyss 22:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind (talk) 23:02, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Deathphoenix 01:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete google Michael Ward 02:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Google?! That's a big step ther...oh, you were talking about this dross, weren't you. Yes, delete. hfool/Roast me 04:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russian (usage)

This article, and Russian (spelling), were created by User:Mikkalai because he felt some links to Russian (language) were "clutter". Apparently it was inconvenient for him to have so many articles linking to Russian (language) merely because a person happened to speak Russian, or a word was spelled in Russian. However, this change matches no policy I am aware of, was carried out unilaterally, and is certainly inconvenient for the reader of the article, who in my view is more important in this case. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. See Talk:Russian (spelling) for the reasons and further discussion. Also, I'd like to point at a hostile attitude ot Jayig, who started chasing me all over my edits without talking. Only on a brink of vioulating 3-revert rule he/she/it started using normal procedures of resolving disagreements. Mikkalai 21:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I first put it on the Village Pump (policy) page for comment, and when others agreed that it was a bad idea, then I reverted the changes. And it was only after you actually violated the 3RR on a couple of articles defending your unilateral change that I brought it here for VfD. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter that you talked to some buddies. The point is you reverted my changes without talking to me. I find this arrogant and disrespoectful. And I didn't violate 3-revert rule. Learn to count (or English language), buddy. There were 4 edits, 3 of which were reverts of yours. The first one was good old plain honest edit. Mikkalai 23:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • What pissed me off most that you lurked there silently, counting "One, Two, Three, BANG! GOTCHA!" This berhavior is simply disgusting. Anyone can check I never reverted twice in a row, not to say 3 times. I am a pretty reasonable guy. But this demonstration of blatant disrespect made me break my own rule.Sorry. Mikkalai 23:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no policy that forbids me to do what I did. You are probably confusing tthe Soviet and Western notions of freedom. It is in totalitarian Soviet Union only things listed in the Law were allowed, and the rest was forbidden. What is more, there are precedents of pages that serve purely technical convenience: disambig pages. Mikkalai 21:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • This page doesn't disambig anything, it just removes "clutter" for your convenience. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • The issue of reader's inconvenience is discussed at the Talk:Russian (spelling) page as well. Mikkalai 21:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While I agree with Mikkalai that there is a problem with too many links to the Russian language article, I do not see how creating technical pages is an acceptable resolution.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:07, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Don't think it's a worthwhile thing to do and just adds extra clicks. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help readers. - SimonP 22:13, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Horrible idea. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this unilaterally implemented bad idea Cdc 22:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect both. Will cause nothing but confusion for anyone following a link to these from anywhere but here of the pump. -Sean Curtin 22:32, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with a re-direct is that it will create double re-directs in all those articles Mikkalai has changed to point to his pages. Double re-directs don't work, causing even more problems for the user. At least if they're deleted, then we can finally change the articles he has re-directed to point back to where they are supposed to, since he apparently won't allow anyone to do that now. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not entirely sure how it would if you set the redirect to go to the final destination page and not another redirect. violet/riga (t) 23:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bad idea. How is it detrimental to have lots of pages linking to Russian language? Tuf-Kat 22:33, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because I simply cannot find pages that discuss Russian language per se. All what I see are pages that say how, e.g., Tsar Bomba is written with Russian letters. Mikkalai 23:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with using categories? Tuf-Kat 23:59, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Categories will not help me to find discussion of Russan language in, e.g., Centum (what the heck is this!!! Wow! Never heard!) Backlinks is an extremely powerful feature that distinguishes wikipedia among many other online reference tools. I hated to see its usability effectively killed in this particular case. Mikkalai 00:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Wyss 22:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind (talk) 23:14, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. A. Shetsen 22:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) If it doesn't work for technical reasons (see above), rewrite. Mikkalai's idea has some merit. Perhaps Russian language should be replaced with Russian to help the user disambiguate. A. Shetsen 22:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ever heard about redirect-fighting nazis, armed with robots and all? Mikkalai 00:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I see the problem but this doesn't make the situation any better. It goes from one problem to another. Jeltz talk 22:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No it is not. But well, you outvoted me. Mikkalai 23:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as explained on the talk page. --Joy [shallot] 23:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Forget about redirect. If (actually, when :-) I will be outvoted, I will clean up all links to this page back to where they were. I am well aware that many geniuses are recognized only postmortem. :-) Mikkalai 23:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• My question is why to you need to know every page linking to Russian language? Evil Monkey → Talk 23:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I donn't need every pages that link to Ru Lang now. I want to see all pages that discuss the language, rather than say how Minsk is written with Russian letters. Mikkalai 23:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Then add them as links in the main article, surely? violet/riga (t) 23:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • How would I find them in the first place? Ever heard about e.g., Centum? Also, there is a pretty fat chance that some smartjay will decide that Centum has only cursory relation to the article and delete the link. (Such cases did occur.) Mikkalai 00:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Evil Monkey → Talk 23:32, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, you evil one. With my own hands I will slay my child in despair. Mikkalai 23:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not very practical or functional. Megan1967 00:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • How come? Perfectly functional, and very practical. In your spare time, please look at the article and at its talk page, and think about the problem it tries to solve. If you don't understand something, please ask there a question. Mikkalai 00:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad precedent. And Mikkalai, stop making personal attacks. RickK 00:35, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • So far it was personal defense and explanation why I went into a distress. Nice turning of the tables. Thanks. Mikkalai 00:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because the page itself is content-free and meaningless. It's intended to be editor-friendly, but at the expense of being reader-hostile (no reader clicking on a "Russian" link wants to go to this page). Mikkalai does raise a valid point about how some pages have so many backlinks that the feature becomes unusable, but this is a general problem (not just for language pages) that needs some other solution. -- Curps 02:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also note Greek (spelling), which is the same thing (listing added below, if a separate vote is warranted).

Relax. I'll kill it quietly. It is also mine. Mikkalai

• Delete. I still don't understand the point. What's wrong with links to Russian language? Wikiacc 20:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Suggestion: When the links are changed back; maybe some of them shouldn't be links in the first place. I mean maybe instead of putting in "[[Russian]]" you should just put in "Russian" . That would probably help solve the original problem (where someone thought that there were too many links). I do agree tht there is a tendency to put in too many links in some articles. Morris 04:53, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I understand and recognize the problem that Mikkalai is pointing out but the present implementation is not the right solution. Discussion on this general problem should not be limited to Talk:Russian (spelling); this matter should be brought up for discussion on broader platforms. Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages might be such a place (however, as Curps points out, the problem is not limited to language pages.) — mark ✎ 19:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greek (spelling)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Russian (usage). Same circumstances, same creator. Omitted from the original VfD for Russian (usage), so listed separately here. -- Curps 01:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Killing it myself. Mikkalai 03:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Portal
VG To-do: edit  Peer review: Video game, Crash of the Titans, Xbox Live Arcade, List of Final Fantasy compilation albums, Metal Gear Solid, Shigeru Miyamoto, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess‎, Myst III: Exile, Blade Runner, Zanac, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) Cleanup: List of characters from The King of Fighters, Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon Featured article candidates: List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s (FLC), Halo (series), List of Sega 32X games (FLC), Alleyway Good article nominations: Ayu Tsukimiya, Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, Super Smash Bros., Music of Final Fantasy XI, Day of Defeat: Source Article status review: GA Review – None; FA Review – The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 3D Monster Maze; FT Review – Final Fantasy titles Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles Sign up for the new VG Newsletter.

from VfD:

Near-gibberish, not encyclopedic. silsor 23:10, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this nonsense is so nonsensical that it wants to be patent nonsense when it grows up. PS: If anyone cares what a debug room really is, it's an in-game "room" where options can be set (picking characters, items, etc.). It's not generally accessable to players within the game, and must be accessed by cheating. The best known one is in Final Fantasy VII. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind (talk) 23:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Replace with the above text from Starblind (which I shall do in about sixty seconds), mark it a stub, and keep. I'd never heard of this, and I find it mildly interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing it expanded. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• IMHO we should keep now that it has been fixed/stubbedIzwalito
• Keep the revision, it's helpful. Wyss 03:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, something I'd never heard of before. Now I want to figure out how to add one to GDB. :-) Stan 04:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now a good stub. Andrewa 10:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form. I learned something new today. --Deathphoenix 14:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into game programming and redirect. JoaoRicardo 03:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Tips on how to be romantic

Not encyclopedic material. Possibly transwiki, but I'm not sure where.-gadfium 23:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. or transwiki as a "How to"? ;) Rmhermen 23:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. This reminds me very much of one of those email forwards. I haven't checked for a copyvio yet though. Thryduulf 23:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think it's a copyvio. No Google hits on things like "note surprise" "steam surprise". Built up by a single contributor, User:Kbg, incrementally in a long series of edits. Minor spelling and punctuation errors, probably typos rather than errors, such as "Balloon" spelled first correctly, then incorrectly as "baloon," are not typical of "one of those email forwards." But I think it does fall under the rubric of "personal essay" or "original research." I wonder whether the contributor has considered submitting this to a magazine... they seem to love articles that can be billed on the cover as "47 ways to..." or "22 great ideas for..." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. It's not badly written, but it's not encyclopedic either. Perhaps Kbg should consider moving this to personal user space. --Deathphoenix 01:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a how-to manual. Wyss 03:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I speedied it before it came here, because (i) in the form in which I read it it said almost nothing (it's grown a lot since), and (ii) at best it promised to become a how-to, and, well, see Wyss's comment. (I realized that strictly speaking neither of these was grounds for a speedy, but was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that it's common practice to speedy new articles that have multiple serious problems.) So anyway, WP is not a how-to manual. (And even if it were, this would need a lot of work.) Delete. -- Hoary 03:31, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
  • Look, OK, I'm just being difficult and argumentative, but for the record I do NOT think there is any policy to the effect that "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual." Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says nothing about this, and Wikipedia:How-to points squarely in the opposite direction. There's simply no consensus on this point, just as there isn't consensus about high schools. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - assumption that all this would apply to absolutely everyone is nonsense - Skysmith 09:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this, smoothly, slowly, and sexily, baby. Ohhh yeah. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as personal essay/original research. This is not well-established factual, verifiable, properly sourced material. At best this is entertaining with a germ or two of truth in it. Entertaining essays with germs of truth in them are not encyclopedia articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because this seems very specialized rather than pandemic. Maybe what works on his significant other doesn't work on everyone. In addition, this article uses a lot of slang words, is not wikified in the least bit, and needs too much improvement to be of encyclopedic value to anyone. Chardish 03:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TrAcNet

This was nominated for investigation as recreated content. (previous debate) The content of this article is just enough different that I don't think it can be speedy deleted. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ban Currency Circulation from the same author. (no vote) Rossami (talk) 23:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's related enough to warrant a delete, if not a speedy delete. --Deathphoenix 01:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I agree. Delete. Timbo ( t a l k ) 03:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't have access to the original content of TRACnet (the article of previous debate), but I strongly suspect this change of capitalization is just an attempt to subvert the previous deletion decision. Investicating this article on its own merit, I couldn't verify its contents. Google finds lots of stuff when trying various queries, but there's not enough context in article to find anything about this international consortium. jni 11:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

A fork of Clitoris. And misspelled. And a dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind (talk) 23:27, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• • note: link added to title Thryduulf 23:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Sorry about that. My fault. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind (talk) 00:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. That's a reasonable misspelling. Rossami (talk) 23:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. (Reminds me of a time when I embarrassed myself in a junior high school math class by saying that a doughnut was an example of a torso). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • But topologically speaking, a torso is a doughnut, so... um. Yeah. Anyway. Redirect, doesn't hurt anyone. Shimgray 03:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Clitoris. Megan1967 00:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as a common mispelling. --Deathphoenix 01:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Wyss 03:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Simply redirect. GRider\^talk 23:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion