Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 12	January 14 >

1 January 13

[edit] January 13

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - Deleted --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eachan

Delete Vanity Page. --Boothy443 09:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete Factual page. --User:Thumilan 09:58, 13 jan 2005
Delete Vanity Ziggurat 10:10, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) ed: also suggest that creator plus sock puppets gets added to list of current vandalism, as there have been several malicious edits to other pages too
Don't Delete Factual page. --cj.waine 11:19, Jan 13, 2005 (GMT)
Speedily deleted, complete nonsense. —Stormie 11:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 - Deleted --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Piquepaille

A slashdot troll, come on now, Delete. --Boothy443 06:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

for refrence check page history. --Boothy443 06:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re-writen with non-POV in mind. My apologies for deleting the vfd --Anon

Looks like vanity. Delete. Martg76 23:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Don't see how it can be vanity since the article was obviously written by someone with an animus against Piquepaille. But his blog is simply not that well-known outside of Slashdot. This is not Walter Mossberg we're talking about. Search for exact phrase "Roland Piquepaille" on Google Groups yields only 56 hits. Google Groups can be a more reliable indicator because website operators don't care about USENET and don't engage in techniques to artificially inflate counts. Generally, for average searches, Groups will yield 1/4 to 1/10 the number of hits on the Web. There are an incredible 123,000 Google hits on the web, the most dramatic ratio between Groups and Web I've ever seen. However, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 326 already displayed." I am not really sure what's going on here but suspect this blog-savvy individual must be wise in the ways of Googlebombing. Anyway... Piquepaille's blog has very little existence outside the Slashdot fantasy universe. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Unfortunately I lack the skill or knowledge to produce a proper encyclopedia article. Roland Piquepaille is an influential person on Slashdot. If he wasn't, he would not have his daily articles approved over all of the other submitted articles on that topic. I've put down the basic information that I could verify as true, and not point of view. If more people are allowed to see the article, I'm positive that the information here will grow. Funny thing about the google search too. Is Roland Piquepaille a real person, or just something created to receive all the advertising royalties. Perhaps someone should take his resume and try to verify it. --Anon 16:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Influential person on Slashdot" is my point exactly. Nobody has yet suggested, much less produced evidence, that he has any significant influence or notability anywhere else. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a Slashdot encyclopedia (although this has been disputed). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P. S. Google Groups shows 9,620 hits for "Jerry Pournelle", 4030 for "John Dvorak", 2,530 for "Robert X. Cringely", 1,090 for "Esther Dyson," 181 for "Laura Didio," 373 for "Cmdrtaco", 80 for "Cowboyneal", 55 for "Roland Piquepaille."

Don't delete, it's all true.

Things can be true, yet not proper topics for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. If you want me to change my vote, convince me that Piquepaille is as influential as, say, John Dvorak or Esther Dyson or Laura Didio or Robert X. Cringely. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, it's a publicity flier. Wyss 23:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. — mark ✎ 19:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. The world is not going to remember who was the most popular person in your third grade class, and they're not going to remember who is influential on slashdot. Heck, I read slashdot and I've never heard of the guy, so he can't even be to influential there. --RoySmith 21:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He's known well enough on /. for an article to be written about him.. kind of suprised there isn't already one. If not one for him self, a 'notable slashdot trolls' article wound make sense, reference him and *Beatles Beatles amoung others.213.78.66.70 09:07, 2 January 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Beyond Devilous

Non-notable vanity. Google only knows about one Tremain Downey, and he works for Caltrans. --Kelly Martin 00:20, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Death phoenix 01:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity self-promotion. Wyss 03:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete no google hits for "soul canada entertainment" either. Wolfman 04:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/RIT Brick City Singers

[edit] Olivia Waters

Almost certainly vanity -- google searches for her name and "Red Eagle" (her alleged nickname) return zilch. Even if all the details provided are true (which, chronologically, seem unlikely) I don't see them adding up to a life that needs recording in an encyclopedia. Jwrosenzweig 00:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity, genealogy. Megan1967 00:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete reasons as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:06, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Death phoenix 01:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - pointlessDS 01:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC).
Delete, some sort of vanity rant or prank. Wyss 02:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete A prank. There is no way that photo is of a woman who was born in 1924. Philip 03:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 kept over a year ago and the discussion was moved to Talk:Shadow the Hedgehog. I'm just putting the discussion here to fix log issues. - Bobet 14:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow the Hedgehog

Fancruft. Enthusiastically-written fancruft. ...or is it!

... yep, it is.DS 00:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep Pretty good google results: 10,500 as an exact phrase. Hs been in multiple games and has merchandise. Probably a worthy enough character to have a short article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough. --Death phoenix 01:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Merge and redirect to Shadow the Hedgehog. I didn't know this other article existed. --Death phoenix 14:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, borderline notability, article could do with cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Shadow the Hedgehog, a more complete article, althoug needing cleanup. JoaoRicardo 03:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge (not a lot to merge) and redirect to Shadow the Hedgehog. Andrewa 04:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep Wolfman 04:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Shadow the Hedgehog. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Minor game trivia. Delete or merge into appropriate game page.Martg76 23:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wholely redundant to properly named Shadow the Hedgehog. Merged and redirected. --L33tminion | (talk) 07:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Doesn't appear to be notable. --fvw * 00:43, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

keep & expand unless more evidence of non-notability is presented. my google search finds at the least many hits for this band, specifying "tiger saw" + band - porter (the last trying to eliminate a porter-cable brand saw). Michael Ward 02:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete, article provides no evidence of shows, recordings or a following.~~ Keep Wyss 02:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- it does now. I just found and added their discography from the 2nd google link above. Wolfman 04:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Some Google hits, featured in allmusic.com. Move to Tiger Saw. JoaoRicardo 03:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete, borderline notability, article appears as a list with no explanation. Megan1967 23:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment that the above link to allmusic is to the wrong page. Their real page on allmusic is here. However, neither that page nor this one establish notability, so delete unless and until that happens. Tuf-Kat 00:08, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
I have created an article for Tiger Saw which is their correct name. This band has released three albums. They have been asked to write a soundtrack to a forthcoming film and have contributed a track to a Will Oldham tribute. They have toured extensively and performed with acts such as Vanessa Carlton, Songs: Ohia and The Microphones. In short, I consider that they are notable enough within the Sadcore genre to warrant an article. Keep Tiger Saw and merge Tiger Saw with that Capitalistroadster 09:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I mean merge Tiger saw with the new Tiger Saw article. Capitalistroadster 09:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect to merged article - David Gerard 17:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

An article already exists at Anthropomorphism. DCEdwards1966 01:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

should be tagged with merge, for merge & redirect not listed on vfd. Michael Ward 02:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I thought it was worth merging I would have tagged it for merge. DCEdwards1966 02:56, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

ok, so then just boldly redirect it, like I just did. Wolfman 04:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Redirect and Delete, duplication. Wyss 02:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to Anthropomorphism, then add redirect. A pity since some work has gone into it. Megan1967 23:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Wikipedia:Anti-Censorship

I say: censor it! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that's pretty good! El_C 03:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as the article claims, satire, not encyclopedic. Wyss 02:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article admits that it's not encyclopedic. Carrp 03:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
delete satire Wolfman 04:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: satire. Stombs 05:24, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense, not satire. —Stormie 11:26, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - David Gerard 20:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure "satire" is the right word here; usually satire 1. is funny, and 2. makes a semblence of sense. This does neither. Two semi-literate sentences do not an article make, in or out of the Wikipedia namespace. Delete. -R. fiend 21:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic, hoax. Megan1967 23:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep Why not to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Extreme_article_deletion. It is non-Encyclopedic so that's why it is not under article domain. Currently is there any policy on wikipedia about non-domain space articles? Any way if it is deleted I'll create it on my own user space. If it is not declared 'unappropriated user page', It can be put on wikinfo.org. There is no point of stoping speach on internet.Zain 01:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Someone who didn't spot your use of "speach" there might have asked you to learn the difference between letting everyone write whatever they like about anything that they like and writing an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 02:39, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
- Why don't you put Extreme article deletion up for VfD? Two bad ideas don't make a good idea. —Ben Brockert (42)
  - Hey. Been there done that. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 02:58, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as useless. It's certainly not satire in any sense I understand that word, unless the satire consists of going "Look! A vacuous article!" -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
The community probably *has* to have in-jokes somewhere outside the article namespace, or they'll end up within in it. Having said that, I don't think this qualifies as an injoke. Delete - to the extreme. Lacrimosus 10:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It took less than a day to delete my white minority rule article (I'm pretty certain the only other VfD I ever been signatory too), but this article which consists of two sentence fragments and mis-spells "attempts," and is signed by the author, has a lengthy, active vote and is still up. Therefore, as a sign of good faith in the VfD process, I am voting Keep; keep, keep, keep! El_C
- You may wish to sign your vote, since anon ones aren't much good. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Good point! El_C 02:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not an official (or unofficial policy), or even funny like that wrong version thing at Meta. Delete or expand to patent nonsense; I'm sure that someone could come up with something funny, even a randomly changing redirect to, say, Cabal, CIA or the like. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 16:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Wakely Incident

I don't think this incident deserves its own article. "Chuck Wakely" "Bermuda Triangle" get 40 hits. Possible merge with Bermuda Triangle. Also, the man's name is misspelled in the title. DCEdwards1966 01:55, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. DS 02:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete (although it could be merged), not encyclopedic. Wyss 02:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - though a merge would be OK. I can't find a longer writeup to expand it quickly, though will continue to look. I've also moved it to the right page name (and am about to move this) - David Gerard 18:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - But differentiation should be made; is NPOV information on the life of the man sought, or NPOV information on the events he described? Chuck Wakely and the things that happened to Chuck Wakely off the coast of Florida are obviously connected, but no more connected than the men who flew on Pogo 22 and the vanishing of Pogo 22 itself. --Chr.K. 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The result was kept a while ago, and the result was moved to Talk:James Worsin incident. I'm cut and pasting the result here to fix log issues. - Bobet 16:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Worson incident

This "incident" looks like a hoax. Even if it isn't, this is not notable enough for an article. If verifies, I guess it could be merged with some paranormal article. DCEdwards1966 02:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, obvious fiction, prank, silly vandalism, could be a speedy. Wyss 03:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probable prank, 27 Google hits for James Worson. JoaoRicardo 03:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment:. I wouldn't exactly qualify this as a prank or "fiction" in the true sense of the word. While not notable in the Google sense, this "incident" has been featured in various print books describing the supernatural. One should also consider the historical factor (an 1873 incident won't feature as prominently as other things). I'm making a comment instead of a vote because I don't know how much WP documents the "unexplained" (probably the same as "supernatural theories", ie, not much), but I can comment that this incident has been mentioned in various print books in the past. However, if you want an NPOV article, I can't see this being anything larger than a stub, so it probably deserves a merge, at most (and probably a delete, if WP doesn't usually document supernatural theories like this one). --Death phoenix 14:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep, no need for a merge - I've put an appropriate category on. This isn't a hoax (article, anyway; I remain of cours neutral on the incident itself). This IP has been contributing a few of these. I've added an appropriate category and a note on the IP's talk page - David Gerard 17:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared

[edit] Current vote here

lets review. copyeditor turned:

<<Creation biology is an attempt to study biology from a creationary perspective. Creation biology is identical to mainstream biology with respect to the observable physiology and function of living organisms today; for instance, the structure of the cell, taxonomy, and genetics. It acknowledges microevolution and speciation as observable phenomena. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology only with regard to the origin of living things. into:

Creation biology is an attempt to impose on biology a creationist perspective. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology by relying on religious literature instead of generally accepted scientific evidence.

my "vandalism" was to revert. npov presents all ideas sympathetically without implying that they are right or wrong ... but then provides substantive counterpoints by mainstream scientists to explain WHY they are wrong. copyeditor deliberately twisted the intro into his pet caricature of creationism, and stripped out all the qualifiers to show exactly where the issue is. he then made a mockery of all the links. no go, bro. Ungtss 12:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is another example of Ungtss at his best:

"you're stuck on one stupid little point: "yes, God can create through evolution." so what? Darwin thought genesis was wrong. THAT'S A DICHOTOMY. DID GENESIS HAPPEN OR NOT? i get too pissed talking to you. ben, listen, you've obviously had your head up your butt your whole life. as you were. Ungtss 17:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Bensaccount 14:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount at his best. Ungtss 14:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think that the above edit should be credited at least partially with the recent removal of the disputed NPOV and factual accuracy banner from the page. Bensaccount 14:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

was it that, or everybody else getting tired of fighting with your repeated unjustified reverts against consensus of creationists and evolutionists alike? perhaps we should move this discussion over to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ungtss? Ungtss 15:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In this free-election, it is clear who the victors are. (joshuashroeder).

After trying to work through this, it has become apparent that this article has no potential to become encyclopedic. Nor did there seem to be any result to the debate. A majority of those who posted comments on this voted for deletion. The main reason this page should be deleted is because there is no way the sole creationist editor User:Ungtss will allow for a reasonable comparison of ideas. Joshuaschroeder 17:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In an attempt to circumvent to circumvent the removal process User:Ungtss has made a number of daughter articles that I'm guessing he hopes will be preserved if the vote is rerecognized for a removal. Please, administrator, when you remove this article, also remove the following articles:

Creation vs. mainstream science in biology Creation vs. mainstream science in geology Creation vs. mainstream science in cosmology Creation vs. mainstream science in early civilization

in attempt to circumvent reality, josh has accused me of attempting to circumvent the removal process by creating daughter pages for some bizarre ulterior motive, rather than simply to cut an enormous page down to bite-size nibbles. please, administrator, when you remove this article, please remove josh. Ungtss 13:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment Does anybody see why we shouldn't just reference this page [1]? It lists all the claims and actually cites them instead of the monstrosity we have here. I can't even figure out the context for half the things Ungtss is saying. I have pointed this out on the talk page. Joshuaschroeder 20:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Can anybody give a good reason why arguments cannot be referenced from the Creation vs. evolution debate page instead of setting up this side-by-side nonsense?

begause talk.origins is not npov. npov is our specialty. let's try it, eh? Ungtss 15:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I once asked Ungtss to come up with a factual error on the site. He couldn't do it. His new tactic is to declare that talkorigins.org is not NPOV. I ask him to show an example of non-NPOV in the site I showed. They are very balanced in their treatment of creationist claims. Please show me where they aren't in the above site instead of grandstanding your own bias. Joshuaschroeder 06:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please, that's a stupid argument. We don't have any control over that site, so it could change at any time without us being able to change it. And besides, we have articles on all sorts of things that there are good alternatives for on other sites. That does not mean that we should get rid of this article and "just reference this page [2]". - Ta bu shi da yu 04:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

when did you lose track of the facts? i demonstrated the strawman on talk.origins to hob, since you dropped out. i find your belief that talk.origins is "balanced" to be quite amusing:). Ungtss 16:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No you didn't. The result, as far as I am concerned, was:

You and me were talking different languages. I don't think it makes sense to discuss with you because I don't speak Ungtssese, so I stopped doing it. For example, you seem to think that "exquisite design" can be "good" or "bad", and "A, therefore B" is the same as "B, therefore A". Since you don't try to make yourself clear, your position seems to change every few minutes. Or maybe it does change every few minutes, I'm not in a position to know. It's a pain to discuss somebody like that. Anyway, you couldn't explain how the page is a strawman. You ended up claiming that I knew it is a strawman, which is not true. I guess you misunderstand the page because it is written in English instead of Ungtssese. --Hob Gadling 16:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

keep. this page is really getting places. we're starting to get cited opinions on all the relevent issues, and i think the page is starting to allow for a description of the scope of the debate. this page has a great deal of potential to be encyclopedic, if we're willing to explore the ideas on their own merits. with regard to josh's repeated personal attacks against me, i will only say that i have only presented creationist opinions on the creationist side, and i have left the mainstream side to present itself as it likes. all other mainstream editors are welcome to present the mainstream side as powerfully as they like. i only ask that the creationist side not be weighed down by mainstream caricatures and deletions of creationist ideas. Ungtss 17:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Above is vote by article creator - David Gerard 23:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

above is untrue. Ungtss did not create the article, nor did he propose its creation. The article was created by Barnaby Dawson, evolutionist,[3] and originally proposed by Hob Gadling, another evolutionist.[4] check your facts. Ungtss 14:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

this page is really getting places. -- If by getting places you mean mired in quicksand.

we're starting to get cited opinions on all the relevent issues, not even close. Look at the talkpages if you don't believe me. The current incarnation of the page is that only creationists are allowed to write on the creationist side -- there's no editorial control and it's impossible to make heads or tails of some of the incomplete arguments.

this page has a great deal of potential to be encyclopedic, if we're willing to explore the ideas on their own merits. -- nonsense. The minority creationist view has a lot of shrill malarky but if it cannot even be presented in a consistent way, how will there be anything like an NPOV comparison?

i will only say that i have only presented creationist opinions on the creationist side --> I disagree entirely. Ungtss presents his own version of creationist opinions. This isn't anything like an NPOV -- even of creationism. He maintains the strict right to edit out opinions that I know exist in the creationist community but are inconvenient for him to accept. For example, I know that the vast majority of YEC accept a biblical inerrancy, but because Ungtss is one of those peculiar ones who don't, he somehow thinks it inappropriate to include this argument (which is made more often than not by people who are YEC) on that side. However, Flood Geology is trumpeted as if every creationist believes it. That's certainly not the case, there are some creationists that don't think all geological features were created by the flood like Ungtss believes. If this page were to be honest, it would be called "Views of Ungtss and mainstream scientists compared": is that encyclopedic?

all other mainstream editors are welcome to present the mainstream side as powerfully as they like. -- Does anyone else find it problematic that we are setting up a place in wikipedia where people aren't allowed to edit?

i only ask that the creationist side not be weighed down by mainstream caricatures and deletions of creationist ideas. -- according to Ungtss' own POV of what that entails. It's clear that the page should be deleted and Ungtss has no ability to see the problem of this false dichotomy.

It must be very encouraging for the creationist to be able to present his POV without having to worry about someone who actually studies the stuff edit it. That seems to be Ungtss' goal for this page. Joshuaschroeder 17:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

all groundless and untrue accusations aside, the talkpage shows that josh's stated goal for this page has been to "make it look ridiculous" from the very beginning. well, it appears he's succeeded. i only hope mainstream scientists who have their heads on straight will be willing to develop this page into something good -- and i do think it has the potential to be something very, very good. Ungtss 18:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The debate is ridiculous. The page, if it were to be done correctly would look ridiculous. This is because there is so much more to put down from a scientific perspective than there is from a creationist perspective. Ungtss doesn't seem to realize that people other than himself are familiar with creationist arguments and the current format discourages them from editting the creationist POV...

Which makes me wonder, why are we entertaining POV at all on wikipedia? Joshuaschroeder 19:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

there are indeed people familiar with creationist ideas, but you're certainly not one of them. you've devoted yourself to caricaturing and deleting creationist ideas on the page, and adding loads of irrelevent information to the mainstream column, making it looking equally ridiculous. if the debate is ridiculous, i can't help but wonder why you take such an interest in it ... especially in light of the fact that there are many other evolutionists who think that the page is a great means of allowing the truth of mainstream science to put creationist pseudoscience to shame. Ungtss 02:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

there are indeed people familiar with creationist ideas, but you're certainly not one of them. utter bullshit. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good one:). Ungtss 16:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Joshuaschroeder has been studying the issue for eight years. I have been studying it for 30 years. In my opinion, Joshuashroeder's familiarity with the creationist side is severely lacking. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<*Comment Does anybody see why we shouldn't just reference this page [5]?>>

I believe that this is symptomatic of Joshuschroeder's bias in editing the article that he can't see how POV is his suggestion to reference an anti-creationist website as a substitute for an article comparing views of creationists and mainstream scientists.

Maybe it's symptomatic of your idealization that NPOV means treating all opinions as though they are equals. Your opinion, sir, based entirely on non-science, is frankly not worthy of NPOV inclusion.

(Above comment made by Joshuaschroeder) Since when is science (so called) the basis of NPOV? Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<The main reason this page should be deleted is because there is no way the sole creationist editor User:Ungtss will allow for a reasonable comparison of ideas.>>

As another creationist editor of the page, I would strongly disagree with this. It is Joshuaschroeder who persists in turning the creationist views into a caricature, consistent with his stated aim of making the page look ridiculous.

Phil and Ungtss have demonstrated that they don't even the most basic of science (for example they make claims on radiometric dating that are absolutely absurd). How can we have a constructive article writing if the writers of the article who are supposed "experts" don't know science? Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Translation: Philip and Ungtss make claims that you don't agree with, so you accuse us of not [knowing?] science and accuse the claims of being absurd.

I didn't make claims for radiometric dating. I cited claims made by creationary scientists (including physicists). Joshuaschroeder seems to think that if it doesn't agree with the POV that he sides with, it isn't science and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<It lists all the claims and actually cites them instead of the monstrosity we have here.>>

I rewrote the section on radiometric dating to list the claims of creationists, citing essentially every one, and Joshuaschroeder deleted virtually all of them because he thought they were ridiculous. He didn't dispute that creationists claim them; he disputed that these creationist arguments have any merit. Any wonder Ungtss would rather he stick to the mainstream science side?

There are creationist who also claim that the earth is the center of the universe (see Modern geocentrism). Yet their claims aren't included. Why? Because they are nonsense (as they are shown to be in the referenced article). Likewise, putting in lies and non-facts is hardly encyclopedic with regards to presentation. And it is a bald-faced lie that I deleted all of them. But then, creationists do tend to break the commandment to not bear false witness. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article is not exhaustive, so not mentioning something means little unless the possibility of mentioning it has been suggested and rejected, which I don't believe to be the case here. And geocentricism is only accepted by relatively few creationists, so may not warrant mentioning in an article about creationists' views. Wikipedia is supposed to take a NPOV, and it is disputed that some of the things Joshuaschroeder calls "lies and non-facts" are in fact that.

His view of NPOV is clearly that if the majority of scientists consider it to be fact, then those "facts" can be presented as true regardless of the existence of opposing views, and contrary to Wikipedia NPOV policy ("... we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.").

As for his claim that it is a "bald-faced lie that [he] deleted all of them", I actually said that he deleted virtually all of them.

His remaining comment about creationist lying is vilification that shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia.

Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<It must be very encouraging for the creationist to be able to present his POV without having to worry about someone who actually studies the stuff edit it.>>

Translation: The creationist POV is not allowed to be presented on a page comparing POVs if Joshuaschroeder "who actually studies the stuff", thinks that that the creationist POV is wrong. Which of course he does, as he thinks the anti-creationist web-site Talk.Origins is neutral!

Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's more neutral than any other site I've found. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It gives arguments against creation and for evolution, etc. How is that even purporting to be neutral? It speaks heaps for Joshuaschroeder's POV that he thinks an anti-creation site is neutral! Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, despite some problems (which are not unique to this page), it is informative and has potential. Pollinator 19:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to count the votes, they will find that it is 20-9 delete (don't forget my vote), which gives a 69% ratio. All that is needed is an admin who will stand up to the usual lies. Bensaccount 17:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. There's no policy against renominating VfD survivors for deletion. But to do so barely a week after the previous debate is closed isn't going to convince anyone. —Korath (Talk) 18:05, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

When User:SimonP added the vfd template to the vote, there was no explanation for what the ruling should be. As User:Bensaccount has rightfully pointed out, we need to know how to proceed, as it isn't clear from the results.

Delete. Fails fitness criteria - David Gerard 23:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, still POV flame war material. I cannot see this article becoming NPOV. Megan1967 03:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. i still maintain that it is a good comparison. is this the reverse inquisition? Xtra 03:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I dont see why we are doing this again, though, the majority already voted for deletion. Bensaccount 03:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The title of the page is inherently wrong, as it suggests that creationism is a scientific view. Martg76 03:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It does no such thing, and your POV that creationism is not a scientific view, is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In order not to suggest this, the article title would have to be Views of creationists and scientists compared. In any case, comparing religious doctrine to scientific theory is comparing apples and oranges, and thus non-encyclopedic. Martg76 18:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But it doesn't suggest it now, and your suggestion would imply that creationists and scientists are two mutually-exclusive groups, which is demonstrably wrong. Creationists argue that their views are as scientific as evolutionary ones; your claim to the contrary is merely a disputed POV. Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science", the article title suggests that creationism is a scientific POV. This assertion in itself is a POV (and in my view rather a ridiculous one). Martg76 09:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science" suggests that creationism is opposed to mainstream science. But if you can come up with a better title that doesn't suggest the opposite POV, that creation is not science, be my guest. And I disagree with you that calling creationism science is ridiculous, but this is supposed to be about the merits of the article, and our respective POVs should be irrelevant to that. Philip J. Rayment 11:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. All of the above criticisms of this page should be dealt with on the TalkPage. This page is too big and unfocused, yes? A few short arguments on both sides would make the comparisions in the two columns clearer, yes? Yes. But these and the above criticisms of this page should be handled on the TalkPage, not here on VotesForDeletion. ---Rednblu | Talk 06:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The fundamental problem with this page is that it assumes that all creationists hold one set of views and that all "mainstream scientists" hold another- this is simply not the case. --G Rutter 09:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sure what's going on here. I voted in the previous discussion, so discount this if it is a double vote. My objections are the same. Gamaliel 09:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is what I voted before, and my opinion hasn't changed. I would like to hear from the admin who processed the previous vote as to how he/she disposed of the previous vote. Is the point of submitting this again to VfD after only a short time that the first vote wasn't tallied correctly, or that there was something wrong with the previous vote? I think this so-called article is a discredit to the Wikipedia, but it doesn't make sense to vote every couple of weeks on the same article, unless there is some new development. --BM 13:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, possibly move to a better title. The thing is too long and its current formatting is awful. But it is a compendium of useful information, too valuable to just delete. It is obviously also a source of some bad will.
The main problem seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding between the editors. Some don't understand that creation can't be proved or disproved by science and that the debate is purely about whether available information supports the view that the universe was created by design or not. Others insist that certain assumptions of science are necessarily true, when they are in fact just tools that allow us to make sense of the world and may as well be wrong. This can't be a discussion between scientists and creationists on the existence of a god and the uniformian assumption - these are not falsifiable and are thus not a good subject for scientific debate. Zocky 15:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The whole concept is pretty much doomed.Potatojunkie 16:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The page is a good exercise in compromise. Neocapitalist 02:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rename. It is doomed under this title which presupposes what is "mainstream" U$er 06:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -Cookiemobsta 19:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - All the information on this page is already covered in the articles on evolution and creation. No need to duplicate the information. It also seems that the views on this page are the views of all scientists and creationists, which almost certainly is not true. people on both sides subscribe to a whole bunch of different views and if we start including all those the article it will become unmanagable and lead to a huge edit war. kaal 19:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Carrp 19:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The header in this incarnation of the article addresses some of my concerns about the presentation (the false dichotemy argument). However, this still feels like a fork to me. The split from the main article will make future maintenance much more complex while adding little value to future readers in my opinion. No change to my prior vote below. Rossami (talk) 03:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I strongly concur with Kaal and Rossami, and with similiar views expressed above. The very title of the article seems an invitation to a flamewar. Edeans 04:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not because this article is inherently going to be POV or flamebait or whatever, but because it is nothing close to an encyclopedia article. It is a set of two lists placed in parallel which, while serving as a wonderful metaphor for the actual Creation vs. Evolution debate in that they don't really seem to be talking to one another at all, is not a proper format for a Wikipedia article under any conceivable model. The other problem, that having only two literal columns, and thus only two categories, restricts all opinions to a simple one-or-the-other (the "all scientists"/"all creationists" problem) is another consideration, but ultimately I think that the article is unencyclopedic as is, and has no possibility of being encyclopedic—to make it an encyclopedia article would mean to make it an article on the Creation-evolution controversy, which already exists. So I don't really see the point. --Fastfission 06:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Epo 00:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fairly obvious stuff, and what isn't should be in the article on the creation/evolution debate. -Sean Curtin 06:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yeesh, what an unreadable, disorganized mess. Delete this thing and put it out of its misery. --Calton 10:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see any reason why this material couldn't be handled in existing articles. This one is unweildy, unhelpful, and unworkable. The title, format and approach mark this out as an article that is never going to be helpful for people LOOKING for information on the topic. It's for people who feel strongly about one side or the other and want a place to fight it out. Mattley 10:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete It is an ugly, impossible-to-follow mess that doesn't help to explain either side of the issue well, and I see no way to improve it. 4.232.147.209 12:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete the problem with creationism is that their views are deliberately vague and consist of a diatribe against science, I can't see how this page is useful; and I am concerned that it comes out as Untgss's views on creationism versus science. In each case the views ascribed to creationists can be better described in individual articles on their beliefs, and as a footnote within a sensible article on genuine science (e.g. second law of thermodynamics). Dunc|☺ 14:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was hoping for a ruling on whether this second call for votes was legitimate. But it doesn't seem to be coming. In case it is, I vote to keep. Philip J. Rayment 15:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Or at least move the information (or disinformation as some declare it) to whatever pages are deemed properly related to Wikipedia. Dan Watts
Delete. Creationism is not science. --Viriditas | Talk 20:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are supposed to be voting on the merits of the article, not your POV of the topic. Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Ugly and unwieldy. ral315 21:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. needs edits. no need to delete what is true. ConfessedSockPuppetJunior 00:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete'. Also the split off pages ("...in..."). Before they start to multiply and evolve. --Pjacobi 10:14, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
Delete. It seems there is no hope for this article.. the beliefs of all creationists (or even most) can't be so easily nailed down.. and many of the editors seem incapable of separating their own views on the subject with perhaps the 'mainstream' views.. believing (consciously or unconsciously) their view simply is the mainstream view. Even the title can imply there are only two views. Also the split off pages referred to above should be deleted. Mlm42 18:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. CheeseDreams 04:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I think it's good, personally. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete along with its daughter articles.--FeloniousMonk 05:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] old vote -- a week before new vote -- administrator archived discussion without comment (20 delete 9 keep or rename: 69%-delete)

Page typecasts all creationists as pseudoscientists. Also subject is fabricated and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bensaccount 02:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, The article does not even come close to presenting the scientific side. For example, it should have been mentioned that there is not enough water on earth to cover all the land. Example: even a child can calculate how long it would take for a stalagmite to form given a simple rate of mineral deposition. Even the smallest cave will show age in excess of 6000 years. user:bconline
- Creationists would dispute every one of your claims used as reasons for deletion (and one is a strawman anyway), so the result is that you are voting to delete because it doesn't agree with your POV. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Creationists are also fond of presenting a false dichotomy that this page advocates. To be truly NPOV, we should mention that there are other pseudoscientific theories that are not creationism that can be referred to in the debate. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Don't bother looking for Mr. Bconline's "User contributions." 8))) ---Rednblu | Talk 16:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since creationism is ultimately based on untestable religious beliefs, a comparative article on creationsism and objectivist science has no traction and will ineveitably mislead on both topics. Wyss 02:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As with bconline, creationists disagree with the claim you use as a reason for deletion, so you also are voting to delete on the basis of your POV. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - It doesn't matter if creationists disagree. There are facts and there are opinions. The facts are that creationism is wrong. There has been objective studies of all of creationists claims (that are decipherable) and they are found to be incorrect. Joshuaschroeder
Keep, excellent work. The article does not use the term "pseudoscientists," and creationists are in fact outside the mainstream of science. Wishing that people saw things differently is not a proper basis for a POV complaint. Gazpacho 03:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - controvesial, but worthy of inclusion. --Zappaz 03:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant, and begging for flamewar. Creationism, philosophical naturalism, materialism, evolution, evolutionary creationism, etc. all address these issues without trying to reduce the debate to only two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Some of the content may be mergeable into other appropriate articles. --TenOfAllTrades 03:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Provides a comprehensive comparison of the self-proclaimed assumptions and arguments of both camps and maintains NPOV. Acb 04:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
KEEP It is a very good and well balanced article. ping 06:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Move to Comparison between creationist and mainstream scientist views. Current titled includes an inversion. And I think inclusion in existing articles would make them too large. 131.211.210.157 10:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Server problems logged me out. Above anon is me. Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant content. Merge anything useful into one of the many other articles on this subject. --Centauri 11:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This was an experiment with a new format which was my idea - I thought that edit wars could be prevented if both sides had their own section. But it failed. It has become the same opinion stew as the other creationism articles. Also, there is just too much material in this subject, enough for a wiki of its own. So leave the debate to EvoWiki [6] and... hmmm, CreationWiki [7] seems to be dead at the moment. --Hob Gadling 13:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I would say it failed because editors failed to stick to NPOV rules and while this is not acceptable it does not give reason to delete the article (just one to change our behaviour). If there is enough material to make this into many articles there is no reason not to as long as we can mantain NPOV. However, most of the science should probably just be linked to from other wikipedia articles. Barnaby dawson 09:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep The stated reason for deleting (that it "typecasts all creationists as pseudoscientists" is not true (and I say that as a creationist), and it is still being heavily bashed into shape, so deletion is at best premature. Philip J. Rayment 14:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree entirely. It's not even clear how to edit this page at this point. If I had my way, I'd go through with a sledgehammer. We do have a Creation vs. evolution debate page anyway, why not just use that as our outline? Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- the page compares two sets of views clearly, concisely, and with npov. non-"pseudoscientist" creationists are free to associate themselves with "mainstream science." Ungtss 14:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- There is no way that the views are compared clearly. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- after merging content somewhere else, probably Creationism. In general, when we have an article X on some set of views that aren't "mainstream", the comparison of X to mainstream views should NEVER be in a separate article but in the main article. If X is not a "mainstream" view, the X article should say so, and should summarize the debate between X and the "mainstream" views. Anybody reading about a non-mainstream X shouldn't have to go hunting for the "Comparison of X with the mainstream views" to find out why and what the "mainstream" has to say about X. If the X article does not have this comparison of views, then it is POV propaganda for X, and if it does then the "Comparison" article is redundant. If the X article gets to be too long, it is very doubtful that the best way in general to split it up is to remove the section contrasting X to mainstream views. --BM 16:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Consider how one distinguishes a Wiki article from a forum argument. I suggest that a forum will accommodate ongoing discussions, with no intention to reach a state of completion, but that it should in principle be possible to complete a Wiki article – that is, to have it include virtually all relevant information in an NPOV form at some particular time. I can’t see how this article could ever reach a state of “completion”, since the debate is ongoing. It is far better to report the present state of the debate in related articles. For the same sorts of reasons, the article will never be “comprehensive”. Furthermore the article assumes that each side of the debate has some agreed account of their position that can be set against the view of the opposing party. This is not the case. Plainly creationists disagree with each other, and scientists disagree with other scientists. The format does not allow this to be shown.Banno 21:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merge with creationism if any of the content is not redundant. Martg76 23:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If this is in fact a fork of one of the Creation vs Evolution articles (which Hob Gadling implies above), I would rather see this redirect back to a source article. Redirect preserves the history of the debate. Having said that, I didn't see anything in this article which was not already covered in some other article. Further, I believe the other articles do a better job of sourcing the various opinions. This article's presentation presents a false dichotomy and obscures conflicting beliefs among groups within the columns. If there is not concensus for a clean redirect, please interpret this as a vote to delete the fork. Rossami (talk) 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV flame war material. Wyss is correct, the article will mislead. Megan1967 23:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete it. To be NPOV and fit its title, the righthand column would need to include the entire output of the sciences of biology, geology, astronomy and physics, to name a few. This is "things creationists dispute with science and what science has to say about them" masquerading under a more NPOV title. I think there is a case for an article that does list the problems creationists have with science but it would need to be meticulously sourced -- not a list of "some say this, some say that", and it should certainly not be presented as a dispute within science, which it is not.Dr Zen 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs to be well sourced. See wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) for a first attempt at a set of guidelines for articles like this. Barnaby dawson 09:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Creationists dispute that they have a problem with science, so you also are voting to delete on the basis of your POV. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Creationists do have a problem with science inasmuch as they think that the vast majority of those who are employed as scientists are not doing science! Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons mentioned above, and more. Most importantly (which I don't think anyone has mentioned), the title seems to me highly inappropriate for any Wikipedia content. Wikipedia does not "compare" views, as that would be original research. Rather, we report the views of creationists and the views of evolutionists, and let the reader compare. Article's contents seems to be setting up some false dichotomy between "mainstream scientists" and "creationists" (with a disclaimer that not all creationists agree with whoever's opinions are in this article). Tuf-Kat 00:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia most certainly does compare views - that's one of the cornerstones of the NPOV concept. As long as this article maintains this, than it's acceptable. The subject matter is one of those things 100% of the people will never agree upon, so therefore the "disputed" disclaimer at the top is fair. I do feel the article needs to be retitled somehow; as it stands I don't believe it's NPOV enough. However I can't think of another title at the moment that wouldn't come off worse. 23skidoo 07:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- We can do this on the Creation vs. evolution debate page.
keep good comparison. Xtra 07:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete The article is horrendous, the comparison of views is just a hide-behind for a creationist endeavor to paint a false dichotomy. There is science and then there is pseudoscience. Creationism isn't an alternative scientific theory: it is one of many alternatives to science. Joshuaschroeder 20:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep but only if it can be agreed to set up guidelines for NPOV in such articles. Please interpret my vote as delete if no such agreement can be reached. See wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) for a first attempt at such guidelines. This is a set of guidelines on NPOV in articles making comparisons between scientific or pseudoscientific positions. I believe that if those guidelines were strictly adhered to (and perhaps a few more sensible ones added) it would be possible to create an article such as this without it becoming NPOV. This topic is dealt with very badly in the web as a whole and it would be great if wikipedia could cover it properly and in an NPOV manner. I think the current version is heavily biased towards the creationist viewpoint but I do not think it is inevitable that this be so. Barnaby dawson 09:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the most balanced treatment on the web to date is the talkorigins archive [www.talkorigins.org]. The creationists, however, think that it isn't balanced at all. If there is to be a debate at all, it has to be in the form of an exhaustive rendering of facts and a willingness (as expressed by the maintainers of the archive) to be constantly vigilant in keeping up to date on the latest creationist fad.

If this page is kept, it will either degenerate in a free-for-all posting of whatever flight-of-fancy creationists feel like pursuing with the scientifically-minded scurrying to find the appropriate niche-counter for their nonsense or it will be a complete repeat of the talkorigins archive. Either way, I'm not sure it behooves wikipedia to engage in a rehash of a very tired "debate".

My main point, however, is that this isn't really a "debate" at all. There are many alternatives to the scientific mainstream and to post a "debate" as such makes it seem like the only alternative is creationism. More than this, the current slant of the article is definitely YEC in flavor, which is only one type of creationism in general.

What we need to do is cleanup the Creation vs. evolution debate article and get away from this necessarily POV fork. Joshuaschroeder 06:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete This article is redundant and clearly slanted.. I think it's important to explain the creationist beliefs, but this article does so in a manner that seems insulting to science. Mlm42 01:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Much as I dislike creationism, this article is inherently POV. Lacrimosus 10:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This seems to me to be more of a debate forum than an encyclopedia article. Also, as has been pointed out, it gives the impression of a false dichotomy. It would set a precedent for inclusion of a myriad of articles comparing "the views of scientists" to every other theory held by someone somewhere. Alarm 00:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The debate between the two viewpoints considered on this page is of encyclopedic relevence. That the debate occurs regularly in legal and governmental circles in america should be enough to establish this. There is no slippery slope here. Barnaby dawson 20:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - The debate itself is ocf encyclopedic reference. This page does a poor job of covering it, though. We should delete the page and work on Creation vs. evolution debate. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Many good points have been made above in criticizing this page. However, we should keep this page to reflect the history of this debate accurately. Mr. Rossami argues that this page should be merged and redirected to Creation vs. evolution debate. But this page is a breakout of the detail of that debate and has a totally different advantage for the reader--namely, to present data in a table. Mr. Schroeder suggests that the talk.origins site duplicates the function of this page, but it does not--because the talk.origins page presents only the right hand column--the mainstream science rebuttal to the creationist nonsense in the left column.

Untrue. The talkorigins archive contains references to all the nonsense (how else could they critique it? Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bconline complains that this page does not honor properly the scientific view. But this is not the SciencePedia, this is Wikipedia, and NPOV at least requires that the creationists should get to state accurately the documented history of their nonsense view of the world--which in my view this page does quite well. The page is getting there. 8)) As Mr. Zen complains, this page does not yet have the citations to scholarly publications. We will do that--and we will eliminate the original research that does not have citations to scholarly publications. But let's get the comparison of views first. Mr. Rossami suggests this page presents a false dichotomy, but it does not. This page merely tabulates the contrasting views in the debate. Nowhere on the page does it imply that you have to pick one or the other--quite the opposite. The parent page at Creation vs. evolution debate makes clear that there is a whole continuum of views in the debate from "Young earth creationism" to "Materialist evolutionism" (Scott 1997).

This is baloney because there is no way in the side-by-side format to decide where a nuanced view or a view that's not creationist but extra-scientific should go! Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Along that continuum, there is less and less disagreement between the creationist view and the mainstream view as you move from the extreme of "Young earth creationism" toward the other extreme of "Materialist evolutionism." Accordingly, the Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared page merely tabulates the observed differences where the empirical data indicates differences. I definitely agree with Mr. Dawson that we should consider seriously the proposed Wikipedia guidelines for tabulating comparisons of science with nonsense. The issue here is how to treat nonsense in a legitimate NPOV manner. ---Rednblu | Talk 16:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think Rednblu is evaluating a hypothetical article and not the one that currently exists. How are we going to decide what constitutes a reference that we can use as part of the argument? Creationists have views that range from the most absurdist miracle-based ideologies to technical disparaging based on physical misconceptions. To reasonably do the "NPOV" suggested here would mean the article would stretch out ad infinitum. How would anybody decide what was reasonable to include and what wasn't?

Much of what the argument against creationism is is that there is a VAST body of scientific evidence against them. I could begin posting public domain sources of the hundreds of thousands of rocks that have been consistently dated to counter the claims that the creationists make against isochron dating. However, this obviously isn't in Wikipedia's best interest.

i'm not editing the page because it looks like it's about to be deleted. the fact that you think the left column is nonsense does not make lining that nonsense up with scientific truth pov -- if anything, it should make the left column look like nonsense in the light of the truth. i think this page could serve the purpose of getting the "issues" of the debate off the debate page and into a side-by-side comparison, so the debate page can consider more of the "big picture" issues, and it's only as long as we make it. Ungtss 19:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In short, those who are crying NPOV for keeping the article haven't really thought the issue out. Nor have I seen contributions from them that would seem to indicate that they were moving in the NPOV direction. It would be a sad thing if this article were kept as it is. We should expand Creation vs. evolution debate and make a reference outside of wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This belongs in an article, not a chart which creates a false sense of equivalence. A flame war will be inevitable. Gamaliel 16:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article presents YEC arguments on the creationist side, many of which OECs would not accept

Exile 22:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Citing from NPOV: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. J. 'mach' wust 04:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge into various creationist articles. "He said, she said" does not an NPOV article make. Heck, this monstrosity isn't even an article; it reads like someone's notes for a school assignment. However, there are real articles that could benefit from some of this information. foobaz·✐ 05:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This comparison is not only unwiedly, but it fails to properly capture the biases from each group; insofaras, creationists are filling in portions of the "mainstream science" section and vice versa. This is a big POV problem that has failed to be addressed.04:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Paranormal Portal

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

from VfD:

Another incident that doesn't seem notable enough for an article. Possible merge with a ufology article. DCEdwards1966 02:29, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, early UFOcruft. Wyss 02:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge with Unidentified flying object. Not notable, but may be notable enough for a merge. --Death phoenix 15:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If not, should be merged - David Gerard 17:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm expanding this one myself. It's quite notable in the field - David Gerard 17:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Erhan E Yildirim

A very sad memorial page for someone who sounds like a genuinely nice man who was, unfortunately, completely non-notable. I'm sure that his wife and friends still miss him, and I know that his friend had the best of intentions in putting up this page for him. But Wikipedia can't have an entry for absolutely everybody ever. DS 02:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, tribute, not encyclopedic. Wyss 02:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this independent spirit, as hard as it is. JoaoRicardo 04:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. While sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial (#5). --Death phoenix 15:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 23:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitcomb Skunk Mullet

Non-notable hairstyle. Googling for the exact phrase returns zero hits. Google gives 2 hits when searching without quotes around the phrase. Now that I think about it, this is probably a hoax anyway. DCEdwards1966 02:53, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete could be a stealthy vanity, obscure. Wyss 03:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, possible prank. JoaoRicardo 04:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryo Owatari

Vanity. Delete.-gadfium 03:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Wyss 03:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Do As Infinity and delete. The man is not notable, but his band is, and there's not much content to merge. JoaoRicardo 04:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: "Redirect and delete" will be interpreted as "redirect and keep". See talk for why. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Do As Infinity. Thanks, Rossami. JoaoRicardo 04:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
agree with above Wolfman 04:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, as above. --Death phoenix 15:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, probable vanity. Megan1967 23:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US nuclear test causes tsunami

Tin-foil hat POV BS. If I'm wrong, and this is a speedy candidate, please tag it as such. DCEdwards1966 03:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as incoherent nonsense. Neutrality^talk 03:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. DCEdwards1966 03:39, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Micheli

Article about a surname. Probable vanity. DCEdwards1966 03:43, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedic. JoaoRicardo 04:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, genealogy. --Death phoenix 15:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Tribal in nature, distinct related group (linguistically and geographically) from an isolated area in the Alps that did not see the first roads until after WWI. Not genealogy, as it is a small known group, nor vanity, but a note on what may be one of the few remaining tribal (Ladin) subgroups. As to whether it is encyclopedic, it goes to showing background of a more general nature. comment added by anon user:66.28.243.27. (Please consider signing in before contributing to these discussions. Due to the risk of sockpuppetry, anonymous votes are steeply discounted. Rossami (talk))
Delete. This isn't even accurate. The dolomites do not touch Switzerland, as the article claims. Martg76 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fuzzy genealogy. Wyss 23:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Comfort Stand Records

[edit] Stray

No evidence of notability. --fvw * 04:50, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Delete - nn. P M C 04:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, possible vanity. --Death phoenix 15:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic potential. Wyss 23:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Not even a dicdef? How dissapointing. Redirect to Feral animals. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 16:58, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm? Strays tend to go feral, but I'm not sure it's the right place to redirect it to. Also, since we don't have a feral animals article, the redirect would be a candidate for speedy deletion. --fvw * 17:04, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

[edit] Monster Media Ex and MMEx

Google only gives one hit for this. DCEdwards1966 04:52, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete not notable, and incoherent too. Cdc 16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a software ad. Wyss 22:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete and watch out, the guy who made these is trying to remove the VFD notices. CryptoDerk 23:07, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Are you not a bit paranoid ? I was trying to correct it again.

Now I am terrified of trying to correct the other pages, as then you will surely bann me. Did you not see it ? Whats wrong with articles about Free Software ? How are Free Software going to be made available if its not possible to express it even in a free forum ? Shakain

[edit] Nguyet Anh Duong

No evidence of notability. --fvw * 04:58, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

~~Four hits in Google and suggests notability within minority group, but possibly insufficient for encyclopædic entry, delete. Stombs 05:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)~~

===There are over 1000 Articles in Vietnamese, that are available online--Bnguyen 07:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Keep if there are this many articles, though a Google link to that would be welcome—in any case, needs clean-up, POV. Stombs 23:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP-why did you protect his page, I started this page on Nguyet Anh Duong she is a Influential Vietnamese American.

-Did you take the time to read the article?

-*Bomb Lady: Vietnamese American Makes Tools for War on Terror by Pacific News Service

-Nguyet Anh Duong Accomplishment in Naval technology saved lifes of American Soliders in Iraq and Afganistan.

-I would like you to read it over.--Bnguyen 05:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment. We read: She is noted as the "Scientist who developed the bomb that ended the war with Afghanistan." by the Vietnamese American National Gala. There was a "war with" Afghanistan? I thought it was supposed to be a "liberation" of Afghanistan, or similar. Whatever it was, has it ended? -- Hoary 07:12, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

-The Vietnamese American National Gala noted Nguyet Anh Duong "Scientist who developed the bomb that ended the war with Afghanistan." please see link: http://www.vangusa.com/mt_TriviaandFacts_INFO.php and goto Science & Technology.--Bnguyen 07:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

weak keep, article needs cleanup and removal of POV. The link above this to vangusa.com doesn't work with Firefox, and with IE only has the fragment in quotes anyway.-gadfium 08:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, agree with Gadfium on cleanup and POV issues. Searching for "Duong Nguyet Anh" gets around 100 hits on Google, seems vaguely notable in her field and in the Vietnamese community. Probably needs some work on figuring out her correct name in accordance with established guidelines on Vietnamese names. --JuntungWu 10:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Above my notability threshold. Needs cleanup, kudos to Bnguyen for doing that. jni 10:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Messy, but keepworthy. DS 16:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, article needs cleanup, removal of POV and expansion. Megan1967 23:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Dbenbenn 01:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep --Dtpham 11:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs cleanup is all. Wyss 22:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

The result of the debate was

[edit] Greenway (Middle-earth)

Roadcruft and fancruft. Wow.

~~I'm actually neutral, but I'm listing this here as a form of finding case law, to establish bounds. --SPUI 05:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)~~
- See backstory at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Route 128 Station. —Ben Brockert (42) 05:18, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  - That was actually just what pushed me over the edge; I've been threatening this for a little while. --SPUI 05:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is a disruptive entry, and should be quickly removed. Keep and chastise the editor who listed this. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've changed my mind back to my initial reaction on seeing this article. This is way too much detail about a fictional road. --SPUI 06:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Abusing the annoying term "cruft" is inherently POV, and if you're going to delete articles about fiction there are far worse examples to start. Nothing in the Wikipedia policy can be abused to delete this article. This is not just any road in Middle-earth, but arguably the most important one. -- Jordi·✆ 06:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete a road in Middle Earth... wow. Grue 07:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Eh, why the fuck can't I make up my mind? I'm neutral again. Maybe after I sleep I'll be strong keep. Fuck the man with the deletionist plan. I'll abstain, now and in the future, due to not being able to make up my mind. By the way, the 'cruft' labels were sarcastic, lashing out at those who label articles like York Road 'roadcruft'. I'm too tired to be doing this shit now. --SPUI 07:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If it's any consolation, I see that initially I voted to delete Route 128 Station and have since changed my mind. If it comes up on VfD again (as it should) I'll vote "keep." Foolish consistency, hobgoblin, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, disingenious nomination. Gazpacho 08:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Category:Middle-earth_places is chockfull of valleys, rivers, peaks, and several roads. If this is a test case then it should be framed better. -Willmcw 09:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, there are a lot of places in the middle earth less deserving articles. - Jeltz talk 09:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Important element in one of the key fictons of modern literature. The mind boggles. Agree this is a poor test case, I'm not sure that test cases are a good idea at all in fact. Andrewa 10:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep reasons above Lectonar 11:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. SPUI raises a reasonable question, and doesn't do so offensively. The only time he's rude is about/to himself and about the general business of commenting on Wikiworthiness. (Out of laziness, I'll assume he's male.) There are now 80 "Middle earth places", 22 "Middle-earth hobbits", etc. List of Middle-earth articles is what makes my mind boggle. I don't rush to say that there's anything wrong with this -- they're much-loved books and all that. (I enjoyed them myself when I was about 14.) But I too wonder whether something is askew when fictional roads are OK but admittedly less-than-famous roads in the real world are not. Is this where SPUI should have raised the question? Perhaps not, but I see no reason why anyone should "chastise" him. -- Hoary 11:15, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
While I do believe that all these breakout Middle-Earth articles are getting out of hand, this isn't the place to address it. I think a lot of merging could be done, particularly for the minor articles (of which there are plenty). Of course, any proposal to do this will be fought tooth and nail by the Tolkien fans. A modest proposal I made for combining the all the Kings of Numenor into a single article (with the 3 or 4 important ones still keeping articles of their own) was dismissed as crazy and threatened with immediate reversion if it were even attempted. And yet with many other important works of fiction people have no problem with characters redirecting back to the original book. At some point Wikipedia as a whole has to get some sort of sense of proportion, and some consistency. -R. fiend 17:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's a road. In a book of fiction. Not majorly central to the plot (in the way that, say the Mines of Moria were), and with no break out effect whatsoever on the world. And people think that someone should be chastised for daring to question why this is would be in an encyclopedia? IT'S FICTION, PEOPLE! Put it this way - would anyone voting 'keep' for this consider voting 'delete' if I wrote an article about the recent Chelsea vs Manchester United football match? Be honest, plenty of you would thing that was unnecessary sporting trivia. Well, some people think the same about what you may appear to find tremendously interesting. If you want to know about this road, read the book. It doesn't exist separately. Delete. Average Earthman 21:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Disingenous nomination. If SPUI is "neutral" about the article then he should not have nominated the article, it's as simple as that. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point VfD is for executing established policy, not a forums for creating new policy. The article itself is a borderline keep. It is a reasonably good article about a reasonably important part of an extremely notable fantasy world. Given this, the level of detail is not grossly excessive, i.e. these five paragraphs belong in some Wikipedia article. Personally I would prefer to see them within a larger, well-organized article, with or without a redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- P. S. I am soooooo tempted to Pi for deletion, just so I could say "Delete, pi-cruft." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't care. —RaD Man (talk) 23:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, I normally vote against roads but there is something here I think worth keeping for now, borderline. Megan1967 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the other JRRTfanroadcruft. —Ben Brockert (42) 03:26, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Could we perhaps have an article called Transportation in Middle-earth? Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons above and consistency with previous Middle-earth nominations. Eric119 05:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Tolkien's cultural influence has become so pervasive, this article amounts to entertaining and helpful LOTR cruft. Wyss 22:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Avoid using offensive suggestions of "cruft" whenever possible. GRider\^talk 23:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- From trusty http://www.dictionary.com:
  
  cruft /kruhft/ [very common; back-formation from crufty] 1. n. An unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is cruft; the TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attacking it with a broom only produces more. 2. n. The results of shoddy construction. 3. vt. [from `hand cruft', pun on `hand craft'] To write assembler code for something normally (and better) done by a compiler (see hand-hacking). 4. n. Excess; superfluous junk; used esp. of redundant or superseded code. 5. [University of Wisconsin] n. Cruft is to hackers as gaggle is to geese; that is, at UW one properly says "a cruft of hackers".
What's offensive about that...? Wyss 00:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Confusing format corrected by Jerzy (t) 04:10, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)]
- Perhaps a confusion between the relatively inoffensive "cruft" and the relatively offensive crud. Jeepers! Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. On procedural grounds that too much insincerity has been evidenced by the nominator. (I have no objection to renomination and consideration then on its merits, after a decent interval (weeks) by a different nominator, who has not tainted the nomination as this one has.) Nominations, like article creations, should not be done to make a point, and this nominator has exhausted any deserved benefit of the doubt several times over. --Jerzy (t) 04:16 & 13:45, 2005 Jan 15 (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.

[edit] Sebastian Mankuzhikary

Only reference in Wikipedia is in Matthew Mankuzhikary, a relative (which I'm also tagging for deletion). Got 42 Google Hits for "Sebastian Mankuzhikary". Article is quite enthusiastic, looks like it was written by a descendant (or maybe by Matthew). JoaoRicardo 05:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Mar Sebastian Mankuzhikary was the auxiliary bishop, and for one year the bishop, of the Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly of the Syro-Malabar Church. The Syro-Malabar Church is an Eastern Rite (Oriental) Catholic Church with a strength of four million. Ernakulam-Angamaly, situated in Kerala, India, is the Major Archdiocese of the Syro-Malabar Church.

Delete Less than 50 Google Hits, and no evidence of notability outside the article itself that I can see. Maybe a redirect to a list of bishops? (is there such thing?) [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 06:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~. I doubt the Google test is very useful in a case like this. Have you searched Google in Malayalam as well? The article looks like an obituary from a church publication, but a bishop is probably of enough local and regional significance to deserve an article. Would a bishop of a Catholic diocese in e.g. England have been nominated for deletion for lack of notability? / up+land 13:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I have stubbified the article (something from the original version can perhaps still be worked back in) and modify my vote here. Mankuzhikary held an important position in an ancient church, which in terms of membership may seem small in a country like India, but is the size of some national churches in Europe (see data below). It is important to avoid cultural bias in a case like this, taking into account that language and transcription problems probably makes the information easily available and searchable in English less than complete. / up+land 00:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. A Bishop is a fairly senior post but if you check the article, he was a Bishop in the Syrian Catholic Church which is a semi-autonomous church, and not the full Roman Catholic Church. According to this website there are only 30,000 Syrian Catholic Church adherents outside of their middle-east base. If we could get some confirmation of the number of people in his diocese then that might help make it clearer whether he was a substantial religious leader or not. If he only ever had a flock of a few hundred even while called a Bishop, then that would not be notability. Dbiv 14:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After reading some of the links below, weak keep. Would still like more info. Dbiv 01:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- You are looking at the wrong church. Sebastian Mankuzhikary was bishop in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (See data on him at the "catholic hierarchy" site), which is part of the Christian tradition (of ultimately Syrian origin) which has been native to India for 15 centuries or more. According to their own statistics, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church has 3,596,198 members and is divided into 26 dioceses, which makes an average of 138,000 individuals per diocese. / up+land 16:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- PS. A page on the diocese and the present bishop: http://www.thesyromalabarchurch.org/thamara.htm Data on the diocese of Thamarasserry: Area: 5,893 sq.kms. Catholics: 1,15,356. Languages: Malayalam. I suppose "1,15,356" is to be read as 115,356. / up+land 17:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, even if there a some hits in Malayam. Megan1967 00:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. All real bishops of all real churches are inherently notable. --Centauri 03:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep due to this link http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmank.html which Uppland cited earlier. But massive cleanup. --JuntungWu 05:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, tribute. Wyss 22:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. GRider\^talk 23:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, should probably be moved to Sebastian Mankuzhikary. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I can easily imagine someone having good reason to look up this name.
Strong keep. Agree with up+land and Centauri. Alarm 12:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep, As per Problems that may require deletion at Deletion policy I dont see any reason to delete this article.
- Google hit should not be considered on this article, lived in Kerala, not a politician or a film star.
- written by a descendant - if it was a relative then there would have been more contents at related article of Matthew Mankuzhikary. I believe it is by somebody who was influenced by Bishop Sebastian Mankuzhikary, and that should be OK.
- I suggest a rename to Sebastian Mankuzhikary
- Thanks up+land for the information.
- As a Malayalee I know the importance of a Catholic Bishop on the community in Kerala.

~ Bijee 23:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Mankuzhikary

No reference in Wikipedia, 1 Google hit. Looks like vanity by some descendant. JoaoRicardo 05:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I get more google hits than that jeez. Delete for vanity. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 05:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a case where the number of Google hits is absolutely meaningless. His language is Malayam and his area of influence was a part of India that doesn't have a lot of Internet usage. The article itself, if accurate, establishes notability. He wrote lots of books and was a popular speaker at spiritual retreats. That's good enough for me. --LeeHunter 23:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vanity? Where do you folks see "vanity" in this article? We've got hundreds, if not thousands of articles about people who did nothing but write one book, played one season in an NFL club, or were a fictional character on one episode of the Simpsons. This guy wrote a bunch of books and was an influential religious figure for 70 years. --LeeHunter 01:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Well those articles should be made FvD candidates then if you dont think they did anything. He may or may not have written a "bunch" of books but they still do not make this person noteworth. Megan1967 00:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neutral for now....if anyone could find more information, that would be helpful.. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. Could be a merger into Bishop Sebastian Mankuzhikary. Would like to know more. --JuntungWu 05:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, tribute. Wyss 22:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vanity by genealogical proxy? Nothing here to establish notability, though possibly notable. Weak delete, subject to change if notability can be demonstrated. Lots of folks have written books but don't deserve an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep the article or at the very least merge whatever is useful with Sebastian Mankuzhikary, provided that article is kept. If the article is deleted, Matthew may possibly still deserve an article of his own in the future, and meanwhile the present text could perhaps be moved to the talkpage of Sebastian M:s article. If Matthew was a significant person in his own cultural and religious context, which does not seem unlikely, this would (I think) make him as notable as many of the pornstars, baseball players or fictional characters from TV-shows already having articles on Wikipedia. / up+land 12:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edited: changed my vote to keep above. / up+land 00:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- I searched the Library of Congress catalogue for the name Mankuzhikary and was directed to an entry on one book by Matthew, where the name is transcribed from Malayalam as M¯atyu Manku_likkari. One book doesn't make him notable, but I can imagine that even the LoC is less than complete when it comes to religious literature in Malayalam. (It also illustrates the transcription and searching problems involved.) The National Library of India does not appear to have an online catalogue (at least I couldn't locate it on their website). / up+land 22:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep and collect updated information on him from Kerala Catholic Church. You may get proper information from [8] The congregation he co-founded working for the down-trodden in many countries of the world. You can enquire and verify it. He led thousands into mental and spiritual happiness. Beware of geographical and cultural biasHe died at the age of 93 on 2nd January 2003. He was the Guru of 1000+ Catholic priests. Also he led a saintly life. Anybody interested can verify the facts.

Keep if the information in the article is correct. This is one case where internet sources are likely to be unhelpful. The Steve 11:51, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep if the article is correct (but some kind of attempt at verifying the information and possibly include a bibliography would be appropriate). An author of several books and articles should normally be considered notable. As mentioned above, we have many articles of people that have achieved far less. Not to mention the Pokemon characters... Alarm 12:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep, As per Problems that may require deletion at Deletion policy I dont see any reason to delete this article.
- No reference in Wikipedia, how do you expect a reference if you start deleting articles and scare away new authors, we should have educated the original author to wikify the article. Also please spend time to contribute to articles than delete.
- Google hit should not be considered on this article, this is about a person who may have died before www (as DOB in 1909), lived/lives in Kerala, not a politician or a film star.
- vanity by some descendant - if it was a relative then there would have been more contents. I believe it is by somebody who was influenced by Bishop Sebastian Mankuzhikary, and that should be OK.
- This persons main work is not literature, it is his community work.

~ Bijee 23:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Bijee. I strongly agree that references from other Wikipedia articles is a particularly weak argument when it comes to underrepresented cultures or geographic areas; it serves to conserve an already existing systemic bias. I hope that we will get more from Kerala. I wouldn't mind seeing lists and, when possible, biographies of all bishops from all dioceses of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, just like there are redlinked lists of all bishops of English dioceses from the 7th century until today (and for that matter all important leaders in other religions in the area as well). But Wikipedia needs more editors who know the area and the language. / up+land 00:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] South African Art Music

Can't be bothered to read the whole thing, but it looks like original research to me. Been listed on cleanup for ages. Some of this could probably be merged somewhere, but I have a feeling if the votes go that way no one will actually do it. Less than 100 google hits for "South African Art Music", but some of those are hits on "...South African art, music, etc...". -R. fiend 05:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on poll method

Keep. In order for the poll to be legitimate, after 5 days voters' participation should exceed 10% of the List of Active Vfd Voters. The decision method that should be used in order to decide what to do should be the majority rule method. Whatever the poll's decision is, it should be valid for 6 months then reconsider.Iasson 07:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The above is NOT valid, the standard Deletion policy applies here. The List of Active Vfd Voters is itself on VfD, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Active Vfd Voters.Thryduulf 10:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Clarification: I feel I ought to clarify that my comment relates only to Iasson's claims regarding legitimacy of the poll. His vote to keep article is valid. Thryduulf 16:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Iasson, how many times do you have to be told that you cannot arbitarily change the deletion policy to match your views? If you want to change the system you must get a consensus to do that, the place to discuss the changes and see if you have support is not here, it is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Thryduulf 10:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Iasson, you seem afraid of following consensus. You've pushed your idea forward without caring what others think. If you annoy enough people, you're going to be put up for RfC or worse soon. Do what Thryduulf suggests instead of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Deathphoenix 13:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - OK, Iasson, so by your interpretation of the rules which don't exist, one would need 30 or 31 votes for any valid result. Well, about the only article on VfD that's going to reach that quorum is your List of Active Vfd Voters. Without that list we need 10% of nothing, which I think is nothing. So we're back where we started. Listen, VfD is already overburdened with things that should be speedied but are left here for 5 days because people are afraid to go ahead and get rid of them quickly. Having 30 votes on every piece of crap that's listed here is a completely moronic idea, and completely arbitrary. If you want your stupid idea to be policy, there's a procedure you can go through, but I advise you not to waste your time because it stands little chance of passing. -R. fiend 16:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        
        Comment:What you dont understand is that I may propose 10% minimum participation for this poll (as long as my proposed minimum participation policy may differs for another Vfd poll) but you and another one can propose 1% minimum participation. For this hypothetical case if we use 2/3 majority (strong majority) the minimum participation for this poll will be defined to 1%, or if we use the average method the minimum participation will be defined to 4%(=(1+1+10)/3). Is it clear now? I am not imposing my 10% minimum participation POV, like you and the rest admins are doing for your 1% minimum participation POV or for your 0%(equals to no_percentage) minumum participation POV. So stop accusing me, and let me speak and vote freely. Iasson 11:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) (comment moved above Andrewa's for clarity by Thryduulf 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC))
        
        Comment:. The point is that there is a policy currently in force that applies to all articles proposed for deletion - i.e. that a minimum of one vote is cast and the result of the poll is valid as long as the article remains substantially similar to the form in which it was voted on. Whether you agree with this or not, you (nor anyone else for that matter) cannot suggest, impose, recommend, demand, and/or implement etc, a different policy for an individual vote. IM(H)O your proposal would be akin to a general election in which the vote in one constituency required a minimum of 10% participation of those voters who have voted in a local election in the past year for validity and the winner being elected for 5 years, while the adjacent consituency required a minimum participation of 40% of the eligable voting population and the winner being elected for 4 years; with each stipulation being unilaterally declared by the first person to cast their vote. Such a system is (IMO) unworkable. If you want to propose that the existing policy is changed, then do so in the apropriate place (see links in my earlier comment) not here. Thryduulf 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        
        Comment:. Thank you for your answers. So the vfd policy regarding the minimum participation percentage applies to all vfd polls and it is 0%+1 vote. Where is this decided? Where is this written? Can you point to a poll that has been used in order to take such decision? I have also questions about the decision method that is used in order to extract the decision from all vfd polls. I asked some admins about that, and I received different answers. One said it is unamimity minus one, another said simple majority, another said consensus(?), and another said the only thing that matters is administrator's judgement when he/she performs the deletion. Is there any common decided decision method that applies to all vfd polls? Where is this written? Where is this voted? Iasson 15:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        
        Comment:. As I understand it (I've not been here a month yet myself) the votes for deletion has always opperated in this manner. Prior to your attempt to set up a list of active voters, there was no such list of people who had voted in polls. As such a percentage of voters was neither known nor knowable (x as a percentage of y is unsolvable when the value of y is not known), meaning that a validity based on a percentage of (active) voters impossible. The only other option for validity then is an absolute number of votes. The figure chosen is 1 vote (not 0%+1 vote, just 1 vote).

Whether or not an article is actually deleted or not is the decision of the administrator. This decision is based on the votes and comments on the votes for deletion page. Where a consensus (which I personally define as "all or the vast majority of voters agree") has been reached then the administrator will go with that consensus to delete or keep (or merge, etc) - e.g. consensus (by my definition) has been reached in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boris Johnson, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Active Vfd Voters and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ariel Ortega. "Unanimity minus 1" is an alternative definition of consensus.

If consensus hasn't been reached, and no clear majority exists then personal judgment by the administrator will probably be used. This can also happen in other situations, e.g. if the article was improved part way through voting, the administrator might chose to disregard votes cast before the improvement; I exepct that the decision to keep or delete in the Olb case will come down to personal judgment. Thryduulf 16:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This personal judgement method admins are using in order to decide what to delete is very funny ! As Dr_Zen said it: "They call for a vote and they finnaly ignore the outcome! They might just as well delete whatever they please and not bother with the vote" :-))))) Iasson 20:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

~~You may think that, but I couldn't possibly comment~~ (striked through because I couldn't resist saying it, but I am not convinced I will have nothing else to say on this matter in the future!) Thryduulf 22:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Agree that Iasson's vote counts, but IMO his statement on the conduct of the vote does not supersede existing policy, so the above discussion is of no relevance to the vote. This is I'm sure obvious to all admins but may be confusing to others. My advice is to ignore the above and vote below. Andrewa 01:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment, VfD is not the place to discuss this. Wyss 22:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As myself and others have threatened, I have opened a RfC on User:Iasson for this behavior. It can be found here for interested parties: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iasson. Thank you. hfool/Roast me 02:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

note Iasson's vote is in the discussion section above. Thryduulf 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Signed essays do not belong here. Transwikied to Wikinfo. Andrewa 18:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. And the article threatens more just like it. Rick K 23:02, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, POV original research. Megan1967 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or redirect to music of South Africa Tuf-Kat 00:23, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. Just to make it clear that nothing I have said above constitutes a vote for or against this proposal. Thryduulf 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Personal essay Philip 22:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as Megan1967 above. Wyss 22:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge: needs a lot of editing, but on a quick read about 30% of this looks like Wikipedia material. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:49, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris keyser

Looks like vanity. A schoolbus rider who researches on Holocaust as a hobby. One of his claims to fame is having been an extra on Hannibal. Got 21 Google hits for "chris keyser" + holocaust. Apparently there's a man with the same name, co-creator of the Party of Five TV series. JoaoRicardo 06:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

School bus driver. I strongly suspect that this is some dude telling tales to a student for a school project. Delete Gazpacho 09:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing encyclopedic here, probably some sort of vanity motive. Wyss 22:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Infrogmation 22:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rigo Murillo

Press release, spam, promotion, likely vanity. See [9] for more. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment The text was taken from here. Does this qualify as copyvio? JoaoRicardo 07:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. I'll put the article on the copyvio list later today. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Now listed on the copyright problems page. Vfd withdrawn. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity, copyright violation. Megan1967 00:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article has been recreated as a non-copyvio. Still seems like vanity to me. Rick K 07:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. my research has revealed strong suggestions of notability. If http://users.churchserve.com/tx/inspiringmusic/bio.html is true, he's worked with Ray Charles, Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma, Jean Pierre Rampal and Doc Severinsen, and has played on several symphony orchestras. If those aren't credentials for a notable classical musician, what is? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. On closer reading, I suspect that link doesn't reveal quite the level of notability one would hope for. The quote from the linked article is, "Throughout his career, he has shared [a] stage along with [such] world-acclaimed artists as...". Presumably those highly notable artists appeared as soloists while Murillo was a member of the symphony orchestra behind them. Even if Itzhak Perlman is at the front of the stage, I don't think it makes every member of the orchestra (thirty, fifty, a hundred musicians?) notable. I would suggest that for a symphony orchestra (one noteworthy in and of itself), only the conductor and maybe the concertmaster are usually above the notability threshold for inclusion. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, thousands of string players have done studio sessions with famous people, this is an ad for a fiddle player. Wyss 19:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP There is evidence of this violinist's capabilities and rank. I have heard his name among my Southern friends. I am friends with some of Dallas' art lovers and they have stated they have heard of Rigo Murillo, describing him positively. Adler
- Note that, despite the attempt to make us believe that this is a logged in User, this is really User:207.235.199.254. Rick K 00:26, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP I know this is a notable clinician who is recently engaged in a Temple University (PA) research study on the Suzuki method of violin in public schools. He has lead workshops and concerts in the North-Texas region. --65.134.160.243 23:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Phanichkul

A publicist for a notable person is not necessarily notable himself. -- Curps 07:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable. JoaoRicardo 19:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 22:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benny Phanichkul

Not notable, no Google hits. Maybe a hoax. -- Curps 07:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probable hoax. Wyss 22:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 22:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erika Wilder

Not notable, possibly a hoax.

Oddly, the "most controversial performance artist" gets no Google hits from "Erika Wilder" performance artist -- Curps 07:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Might be worth keeping if the clothing design aspect is true. Never heard of her as a performance artist. Looks like the page has already attracted a bit of minor vandalism, too. My vote right now is Clean Up unless the designer part is also a hoax. 23skidoo 20:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- But note that the same anon IP created Benny Phanichkul, which smells hoaxy. -- Curps 21:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 00:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 22:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No google hits for "Erika Wilder" clothing LLC either. -- Infrogmation 22:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Jonezes

A "concept in early stages of pre-production" is by definition non-encyclopedic. -- Curps 07:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete Cdc 16:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Come back when it's matured and write an article about it then, providing it's notable. Inter 16:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable. JoaoRicardo 19:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 00:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Smells like a hoax to me, and even if real is premature. 23skidoo 07:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 22:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuanians in France

POV, it looks more like a comment than an encyclopedia article. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-encyclopedic, probably not even accurate Glaurung 08:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete soapboxing Gazpacho 09:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above -- Hoary 09:59, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Delete. Commentary, not factual information. Average Earthman 21:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP not a blog. Wyss 22:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. You know, I found this page looking for problematic edits by an IP. My first thought was VFD, so maybe I'm not that much of an inclusionist ... - David Gerard 00:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was

[edit] Consensus reality

Basically original research, or an essay. Does not provide any indication that "consensus reality" is a term in use by social psychologists. --BM 13:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There is already an article on the socially constructed reality, a topic in the sociology of knowledge. There is an important book on that title by Peter Berger. The Consensus reality article introduces a new term for the same concept and doesn't seem to add anything beyond poorly-written personal musings on the subject. Most of the article actually discusses the idea of reality enforcement (which is redirected here) again without indicating whether this is a term used by sociologists or psychologists or providing background. The article could just be deleted, but someone enterprising might find a few sentences worth merging into socially constructed reality. --BM 14:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The proposal to delete is based on the bizarre assumption that "consensus reality" would have to be "a term in use by social psychologists". It was and is used outside the field (for example, by Andre Breton). --Daniel C. Boyer 15:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- What is bizarre about it? If you don't think this supposed topic lies within the discipline of social psychology, then make it sociology, cognitive science, or you name it. The point is, the article doesn't mention a single scholar, or anyone, who has ever used the term "consensus reality". Socially constructed reality, on the other hand, at least seems close to the title of Peter Berger's book, "The Social Construction of Reality". If it isn't a term of art in some discipline of social science, and it is not a popular catch-phrase or meme, then what is it doing with an article in the Wikipedia and where did the author get his information about it other than out of his own head? --BM 20:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - I've heard it used quite often in casual conversation it's definetly a meme. V 06:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The contents of the two articles don't seem to overlap sufficiently. Googling reveals that the term is in active if slightly unnerving use. -- Kizor 19:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like almost all the uses one finds in Google are ufologists, etc, using the term to refer to "reality" according to those who regard them as whacko, as opposed to, you know, their "reality". --BM 01:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I can't grasp the difference between consensus reality and socially constructed reality. They seem to me the same concept with different names. The article is worth keeping on its own, but maybe they should me merged. JoaoRicardo 19:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Concur. Keep or merge, clean up in any case, but don't delete, and the term has enough currency to be at least a redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:03, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, article needs cleanup. Megan1967 00:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another weak Keep and cleanup. There seems to be a difference in connotation and perhaps denotation in the terms. The Social Construction of Reality has a whole lot of heavy academic baggage to go along with it (and is a mouthful to say). Consensus Reality seems to be a newer vintage (and is hip without all the heavy baggage and extra syllables). As BM has observed, it seems "consensus reality" is often used by those holding minority (or whacko) opinions to disparage what they see as the self-imposed blinders mainstream society enforces to avoid consideration of what the minority (or whacko) finds obvious. Seems to be yet another variation on Plato's Allegory of the Cave. older≠wiser 03:37, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
I vote to Keep this article. I vote as decision method in order to decide whether to keep or delete, to be used the strong majority(2/3) decision method. I vote for the keep_or_delete decision to be valid for 12 months then reconsider. I vote for this Vfd poll to be legitimate only if after 7 days voters' participation will exceed 4% of the List of Active Vfd Voters. Finnaly I vote to let me speak and vote freely and stop bothering me with your POV "correct" deletion policy. And I am encouraging you to also vote for your favorite decision method, for how long the keep_or_delete decision should be valid (you may vote inbetween one second and eternity), and for the minimum participation percentage that turns this vfd poll legitimate (you may vote inbetween no_percentage_applies(0%) and 100%). Iasson 12:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD is not the place for this rant. Wyss 22:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep, needs cleanup. Wyss 22:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I just wrote a new explanation for consensus reality. I hope people like it and I didn't do anything wrong. I left the lower sections as they were, though I'm not sure how well they go with what I wrote. This is my first time participating here at Wikipedia. Manjusri 21:04, 15 Jan 2005
Keep It's quite a common term. And if there are problems with the article itself they can always be fixed. V 06:52, 21 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.

[edit] Jesus horse

Neologism. I added the vfd tag to the article yesterday but wikipedia died on me as I was trying to list it on here. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Unnotable trivia. Or if there is any substance to it, add it to the article about the guy who said it (if article exists, I didnt check). Inter 16:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Jimmy Fallon if anyone knows if this is a recurring joke, otherwise just Delete. --InShaneee 16:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I remember this. A single brief joke from SNL. Not even slightly encyclopedic. -R. fiend 16:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. Not all jokes need encyclopedia entries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and make a trivia item under Fallon's article. I just invented the word "splanglepussing" to describe a website only working half the time (kinda like Wikipedia!). Can I make my own article about it, too? ;-) 23skidoo 20:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, we definitely need more VfD's. ;-) Inter 20:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with 23skidoo's suggestion that this be included in Jimmy Fallon's article. Only recurring characters belong there; we certainly aren't going to mention every joke he ever told on his years at Weekend Update. There are thousands, and this one is no more notable than the others. -R. fiend 23:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Fair enough. I'm not that familiar with Fallon's work, however assuming "Jesus Horse" is a Weekend Update joke, I thought it might be a running gag or a piece of lingo coined by the show that might have been picked up by others, thereby warranting a mention in his article. (i.e. Fallon coined the phrase "Jesus horse"...etc.). If he only mentioned it once, than I concur. 23skidoo 07:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, trivial neologism. Megan1967 00:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, trivial gag. Wyss 22:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete; at this point it's just a trivial neologism. If the term survives the decade, then maybe an article will be merited. Psychonaut 17:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge; This was a notable enough meme to have an entry on Jimmy Fallon, but definitely doesn't need it's own article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:21, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IPod killer

The page has little-to-no possibility of really being encyclopedic, and what little useful info is really there is probably better merged with IPod. Additionally, it's poorly formatted and likely to become dated. Thus, it should probably be deleted -- Kaszeta 15:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Merge, This information will become outdated very quickly due to the rapid development in this market area. Merge anything interesting (if any) to the iPod article and delete the rest. Inter 16:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - yes, many products have competition from other similar products. This is not a useful classification. Cdc 16:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for reasons articulated by Kaszeta, Inter, Cdc. Not encyclopedic; magazine-article fodder, unlikely to be useful for more than a few months. As a side note: it does seem that in my experience no product referred to in the trade press as an XYZ killer has ever come close to killing XYZ. (IBM 9370 "VAX killer," anyone?). Note that the iPod itself was never billed as a "killer" of anything. "Let's develop a brand new product that does something that's never been done before that people need to have done" seems to be a better product strategy than "Me too, but with more of everything." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge into digital audio player and redirect. It can also be merged into IPod, but I don't think it should redirect there because it refers to other DAPs, not to IPod itself. JoaoRicardo 20:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to Digital audio player, then add redirect. Megan1967 00:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete There's nothing here that isn't personal opinion or otherwise not encyclopaedic. --Dtcdthingy 00:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Not encyclopedic and short lived. -- Zappaz 05:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robin SAunders

Fails to establish Wikipedia:notability. Some bloke named "Robin Saunders" has a wife and child, is the son of a dog-breeder, and is considered by the author of the article to be a "pikey". Whoopee! Uncle G 15:07, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Also note that 192.250.97.6's two other contributions today have been to vandalise Morningside and Kirriemuir with insulting trivia about apparently local residents. Uncle G 15:32, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Delete offensive character assassination. "Pikey" is a racial epithet for the Roma in England. Dbiv 16:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Also vanity. Inter 19:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic, possible libel. Wyss 22:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special Operations Commander "Half-Jaw"

Fluff article about a fictional character whose name "isn't yet known" in a fictional race in a computer game. Does anyone else share my opinion that Wikipedia should be mainly about this universe? Uncle G 16:00, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Delete minor fan trivia Cdc 16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Uncle G, I feel your pain. This is about as perfect an example of fancruft as I think one can find. -R. fiend 16:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I wrote something similiar once. I was about 14 and it concerned a character's background in AD&D. On a character sheet. I rest my case. Inter 17:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete a character who doesn't even have a name!? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete it has all been said. -musschrottJan 13, 2005
Delete. Almost no content, and what's there is fancruft. Not encyclopedic at all. -- Kaszeta 21:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Driven to silence

This is just advertising an external link. Thryduulf 17:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion. Inter 19:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, no content, website ad. Megan1967 00:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No useful content or history, no evidence of notability. Apparently an unsigned band. Andrewa 01:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. — Asbestos | Talk 10:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Gorman

This entry appears to be a vanity page and is non-notable. It is only linked from Test-driven development as the author of an external tutorial which does not appear to work. --Ghewgill 18:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Vanity. Inter 19:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is no evidence here of any significant contribution to the world. On the plus side, he appears to be a real person rather than someone briefly mentioned in a work of fiction somewhere. Average Earthman 21:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 22:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HAOS.MULTIMEDIA

Advertising. Incidentally, this was listed as a CSD, but it doesn't fall under any category there. Smoddy | Talk 19:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Blatant ad. Inter 20:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad, not an article, WP not a directory. Wyss 22:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Khym Chanur 07:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality^talk 07:27, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

NADIR - one of the best illusionists.

[edit] Nadir (The Illusionist)

Vanity, non notable. The site doesn't establish notability. JoaoRicardo 19:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, 3 links to same page no less and nothing else. Google came up with quite a few hits for Nadir and magic, but as far as I can tell, only the first 3-4 hits were actually about this person. Inter 20:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete this one. There's no real content, just vanity -- Kaszeta 20:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as the very nadir of vanity. Ah, I am amusing! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Website advertisment, no useful content. I have delinked the weblink and removed the duplication. No need to speedy it IMO, better to let it go the five days. Andrewa 01:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as spam, article consists of a single URL. Wyss 22:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - Jpo 00:44, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beverly fight

Hoax. The poor woman lost her legs at six, got mauled by her dog, taught school with a "grabbing hook" for replacement, couldn't hack it with the younger people and ultimately got struck by lightning. Doesn't Google, written up by an anon and managed to linger around for more than a month. I believe this situation should be rectified. Delete. JRM 19:35, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Delete. I'd say it's close to being a speedy. Xezbeth 19:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Decidedly odd story, to say the last, no Google hits -> Mot likely hoax. -- AlexR 19:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alexandra Parker, of the Arizona State University College of Law, graciously provides the information that the first two women to graduate from the College were Mrs. Ruth G. Finn and Mrs. Dana M. Porter. Draw your own conclusions; I say delete. --Kelly Martin 21:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: I don't have a date for when Mrs. Ruth G. Finn graduated from ASU, but her daughter, Elizabeth R. Finn, graduated in 1972—only five years after Ms. Fight is purported to have enrolled. The odds seem quite long, now, don't they? --Kelly Martin 21:55, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

More information: Ruth Finn graduated in 1970, a member of the inaugural class of the college (it opened for operation in 1967). According to my contact at ASU, there were two other women in the inaugural class who did not graduate. Ms. Finn was an older woman at the time she attended the school; her husband was already a well-known attorney in Arizona. There is no reasonable way that the facts as provided to me by ASU can be reconciled with the recitation in this article. I am now tempted to write articles about Ruth Finn and her husband, Herb, both of whom appear to be notable persons in the history of the struggle for civil rights in Arizona during the 1950s and later. --Kelly Martin 23:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete even though it's probably one of the top 10 gag articles I've seen on WP so far. My personal favourite line: "They pursued interests of older womens lawyers who had families and who did not like to party like the two younger women lawyers" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Shound it be preserved on BJAODN? --TenOfAllTrades 22:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. This is better than the vast majority of current BJAODN stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  
  If you want to copy it, you're free to do so. I for one don't care for this feeble attempt at trolling, but if someone finds it funny, you don't need consensus to do it. JRM 23:44, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 00:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as both sneaky and silly vandalism. Wyss 22:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Speedy" and "sneaky" contradict each other, Wyss. If it's sneaky, it can't be speedy. That's what we have VfD for, and Kelly's tireless research. :-) I symphatize with your feelings, though. JRM 04:20, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Infrogmation 23:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jinkleberry

Almost the canonical vanity article. And we have no evidence that this actually is an 18-year old girl, before people start getting soppy. Uncle G 19:41, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Delete, Vanity, and it's unverified. Could be userfied but there's no such user. So the big mystery remains, where is the username referred to in the article. Does it matter at this point? Only time will tell. Inter 20:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Mystery solved: http://www.livejournal.com/users/jinkleberry/ and http://www.geocities.com/jinkleberry Still not encyclopedic, even if as nicknames go it's pretty cute. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:10, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. But, yes, I'm going to get soppy. I think it's reasonably likely that Jinkleberry is exactly whom she says she is, both in the article and here (where she apparently discloses just about everything about herself but her telephone number and mother's maiden name. Jink, if you read this, please be more discreet about what you publish about your personal identity online). I don't feel the slightest compunction about deleting articles that are basically resumes of self-promoting twenty-somethings, but I wish I knew how to be kinder about vanity articles from teen-aged newbies. Still, I don't know how you can be clearer than "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:Policy)" which appears over the edit box whenever you create a page. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What Dpbsmith said. 715 hits for just some young blogger--scary. Niteowlneils 23:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 00:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) 00:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, blog vanity. Wyss 22:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dont Delete, 23:24, 18 Jan 2005 There is no evidence to suggest that this is a vanity or that it has been written by Jinkleberry herself. Many website owners, for example Maddox, have been added to wikipedia without deletion.
- Well, whoever did write it needs to step forward and identify him- or herself, explain their relationship to Jinkleberry, and explain why this particular site is notable enough to be an encyclopedia entry. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was

[edit] Col. Boyd on Warfare

The article appears to be an original essay, written from the point of view of a disciple of Col. Boyd rather than an observer of his teachings. The central problem is that it's not really about 'Col. Boyd on Warfare' at all, it's a lot of original padding, unattributed, and I get the impression that the author is using Boyd's name to push his own theories.

The two subjects of the article - Boyd, and his teachings - appear to be covered quite well in the articles John Boyd (military strategist), OODA Loop, and most particularly Military Strategy (John Boyd), which is shorter and makes more sense. It is worth noting that 'Col. Boyd on Warfare' is an original title, and the article should really be called 'An anonymous person's bald assertions of what may or may not be Col. Boyd's thoughts on decision-making'. For all the length, nothing of it can really be added to the three links aforementioned.

It was listed for VFD back in June 2004 and seems to have saved from destruction by apathy rather than love. The various discussions in the Talk page's VFD archive came to nothing. Author 68.1.92.42's only other edits are to John Boyd (military strategist), although his work has mostly been replaced by subsequent contributions. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See prior discussion here

Opening this can of worms with a Move request to preferably the book, and a very thorough cleanup of the article including POV and readability. By the looks of it, it can be condensed somewhat into a more compact version. The person the article is about is notable indeed, but if the focus is on the article itself, it should be at the very least cleaned up if it's to be kept. Inter 20:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The existence of Military Strategy (John Boyd) makes this article redundant and overkill. The previous VfD discussion mentioned cleanup numerous times and nothing was done. I consider it unlikely anything would be done this time, if kept. Also, the other article states that Boyd never wrote a book on military strategy, merely what would today have been a power point presentation, so it can't be moved to the book. If there's anything true, useful, and not included there already, then merge those elements are redirect to Military Strategy (John Boyd). -R. fiend 21:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Thanks for the clear up. Inter 22:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Military Strategy (John Boyd) covers this topic already, and is more objective. This other article is just more detailed, in such a way that goes beyond Wikipedia scope, IMHO. By the way, shouldn't that be Military strategy (John Boyd)? JoaoRicardo 04:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I see no reason at all even for Military Strategy (John Boyd) to be a separate article; it can all be in the John Boyd article it seems to me. I suggest merging that into John Boyd. Is there a precedent for other strategists to have a Military Strategy (Commander Whatshisface) article? It just doesn't seem logical. -R. fiend 18:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, duplicates existing content. Wyss 22:17, 14 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.

[edit] The argentine experiment with a currency board

A very well written article, that makes me loathe to do this. But it's original research, an essay that speaks in the first person and draws conclusions, nonetheless. ~~Tell~~Show me that these are just artifacts and that it is possible to Cleanup this article. Uncle G 20:08, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Delete. This is an essay (or possibly someone's term paper) and thus is written to expound and defend a certain POV. Not really salvageable in whole or in part. This topic is already covered in Economy of Argentina and Argentine economic crisis (which could both use a fair bit of work). -- Curps 21:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge... somewhere, and delete. This is a horrible article title. The article itself is an academic essay, but well-written enough that there should be something of value to salvage for those other pages. Shimeru 22:06, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Submit to SSRN, then delete here. Merge if possible. Martg76 23:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not notable, POV original research. Megan1967 00:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The original author appears to be in the process of attempting to make the article encyclopaedic. Uncle G 17:34, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Keep, cleanup and give it a better title. Wyss 22:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep the relevant bits and merge them where appropriate. Much of this article is actually NPOV (descriptive) and potentially useful. --Jpo 00:39, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Note further that the author has been working today to improve this article, and his user page seems to indicate a genuine interest in contributing (even if the original article does look more like a term paper). - Jpo 00:50, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  - Then why don't you communicate with him to let him understand Wikipedia's policies regarding original research and that we would appreciate his efforts on such articles as economy of Argentina rather than on this article which we're discussing deleting? —Lowellian (talk) 11:10, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for now, although I would like to see the primary author commit to turning this into a normal Wikipedia article. If a normal article hasn't happened by, say, March 1, and this comes up for a vote again, I'd delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, how about he just copies the article into his userspace and it gets deleted from here. Then he can take his time to get it right and recontribute it. It's going to need a new title anyway, and the existing poorly-chosen title won't be kept as a redirect, and the existing article history doesn't need to be retained if there's only one contributor. -- 64.228.83.224 03:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Hmmm, I hate when Wikipedia logs you out like that
Delete, possibly merging useful paragrpahs. --70.17.37.64 04:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. What Cusp said above. —Lowellian (talk) 11:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soaper

Unnecessary fork from soap. Recomend merging there. JoaoRicardo 20:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge, Inter 21:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
12,500 Google hits shows this is a widespread activity. Merge if you wish but don't forget a redirect as well due to the popularity of the term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep (with Move to Soaper of course). The number large of people around with the surname "Soaper"/"Soper", and the number of roads named "Sopers Lane" and the like, leads me to believe that this has been a notable occupation for ... cough ... quite some time. I'd suggest Move with redirect to Soap making except that I think that there is potential for related content as a surname and a placename. Uncle G 22:05, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Redirect to Soap, merge and delete. Wyss 22:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. Seems like valid info. This is a stub, let it grow. Disk space is cheap. - Jpo 00:34, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, could do with a cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 23:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Sudan

For reasons see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Discrimination against non-Muslims in Iran. Copy and past of the US State Department report. The title is POV and the source (US government on Sudan) is not neutral. OneGuy 20:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep unsigned comment by User:Malbear. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Rossami (talk)
Delete - Big POV. This is US state communication material: it is not an attempt at fairly reporting on the subject. It is fundamentaly biased for it is the expression of a country 1) at war 2) christian. Also, there is no point in blandly duplicating this material. IMO it's worth a link but not duplication in WE. Gtabary 11:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge or move. The US State Department reports are generally a credible source, and are public domain, but the article title isn't NPOV, and there is no need to duplicate large portions of the report — that's better left to Wikisource. Put what is useful into articles with more NPOV titles, leave the rest. Shimeru 20:26, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, diplomatic warning without context. Wyss 22:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
delete, or at least rename. We need to stop taking something from the word for word US Dept. of State. __earth 00:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Conti|✉ 03:06, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Valid source. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:53, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Megan1967 01:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge.Carrp 19:32, 18 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 result of the debate was

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan

For reasons see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Discrimination against non-Muslims in Iran. Copy and past of US State Department report. The title is POV and the source (US government on Islamic country) is not neutral OneGuy 21:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete I am my self Pakistani although there might be some but the article is just not fit for an encylopedia. Seperate Election system has been ebolished. Any way Seperate Election system was demanded by muslims when they were minority in India. So they thought they can give same rights to Pakistani Minorities. When they disliked it. It was abolished. I think total cases of 'toheen-i-Risalat' won't be more then 2,3. Zain 00:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV title ... and would we post on Wikipedia Iranian government report on Israel or the US? OneGuy 02:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If it is noteable and in public domain. You can put full text! Zain 02:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Of course not because the source would be not neutral. Why should the US government report be considered neutral, especially against countries like Iran? OneGuy 02:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete--Malbear 05:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete -- if there specific claims made that are factually incorrect, they can be fixed. Perhaps the title should be changed to the more neutral Situation of non-Muslims in Pakistan. Ferdinand Pienaar 06:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That's also not right ... how about Status of religious freedom in Pakistan? OneGuy 06:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Big POV. This is US state communication material: it is not an attempt at fairly reporting on the subject. It is fundamentaly biased for it is the expression of a country 1) at war 2) christian. Also, there is no point in blandly duplicating this material. IMO it's worth a link but not duplication in WP. Gtabary 11:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge or move. The US State Department reports are generally a credible source, and are public domain, but the article title isn't NPOV, and there is no need to duplicate large portions of the report — that's better left to Wikisource. Put what is useful into articles with more NPOV titles, leave the rest. Shimeru 20:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, diplomatic warning without context. Wyss 22:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
delete. POV __earth
Delete. --Conti|✉ 03:06, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, merge, merge. Preserve good info. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:43, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Megan1967 01:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Carrp 19:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article just given a one sided view and actually does't reflect the liberty given to minorities in Pakistan. Remeber we have seen several issues even in westren world becuase of Christ even, so its always good , if you respect the prophets and leadors of other religions. This is the basic requirement to live in one world together. Therefore , this is rule that brings harmony and peace rather then distraction. Therefore, i think so the article is just baised and such baised articles should not be included in the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place where we look for definite reference rather then disputed one's.

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 result of the debate was

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia

Delete POV title ... and would we post on Wikipedia Iranian government report on Israel or the US? OneGuy 02:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV title... Zain 02:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
NOT DELETE - the source was initially a US report which formed the basisfor contribution by actual Malaysian non-Msulims. Sources cited in the article are actual Malaysian media sources. POV is not grounds for deletion. Its grounds for correction and modification.--Malbear 04:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As you can see above, another problem with the article is POV title. The relevant parts should be moved to an article with the title Religious minorities in Malaysia OneGuy 04:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - How is the title a problem? If an article describes "Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia"???--Malbear 05:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - "Religious minorities in Malaysia" would necessarily define other religions in Malaysia while "Inter-faith relations" would define non-discriminatory relations....they are all seperate knowledge domains. --Malbear 05:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Wikipedia policy is NPOV. See the discussion at Talk:Israeli violence against Palestinian children .. you need to find a neutral title for your article OneGuy 05:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- so why does that get to keep the POV title and not this??? Xtra 07:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - That title was not created by me, nor do I have any thing to do with keeping or moving that article. Read the discussion. It's being voted to move OneGuy 08:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - i am not voting on this one. that one has been sitting like that for ages. Xtra 08:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)]
      - That one is like what, two months old? This one is more than year old. OneGuy 11:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Another neutral title would be Human rights in Malaysia or Status of religious freedom in Malaysia. The current POV title has to go OneGuy 05:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retitle and Keep This is not the only attempt at discrediting US State Dept. findings about Islamic nations. This is a program: a quick review will show who is involved. --Wetman 06:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And of course if you read Talk:Israeli violence against Palestinian children .. you will know how this discussion started OneGuy 06:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retitle to just Discrimination in Malaysia and keep. Valid subject. Most of the content were indeed contributed by Malaysians. --Andylkl 07:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
- "Discrimination in Malaysia" is not a NPOV title just like "Discrimination in Israel" would not be NPOV title. What's wrong with "Human rights in Malaysia" or "Status of religious freedom in Malaysia"? OneGuy 07:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - The thing is that those two titles you had suggested are just beating around the bush. If there's a problem in Malaysia, just point it out bluntly and stick straight to the facts. --Andylkl 07:30, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
    - That's not NPOV. You claim there is problem in Malaysia (others disagree) and some claim there are problems in say Israel (and others disagree). The policy of wikipedia is NPOV. The title has to be NPOV, and then you can discuss your disputes under NPOV title, not POV title OneGuy 07:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Literally it's true discrimination exists in Malaysia, but discriminations exists in the U.S. too. Discrimination is just too loaded a word, but then again, the bumiputra system itself is obvious racism. I'm sure there are many who disagree, so I don't think the idea's a good one. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Move as per above. Under the right title, this is a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic. Alleged discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia perhaps? Whatever we do, keep it. Just don't keep it at the current title since it does appear POV. The article itself is POV, but that's a different matter (and surprisingly, the material I find most POV is not from the original State Department report). I find it's ironic that the Malaysians are the ones voting to keep this, don't you think? Johnleemk | Talk 07:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Alleged discrimination is long and still POV. The two titles I suggested "Human rights in Malaysia" or "Status of religious freedom" in Malaysia are perfectly NPOV OneGuy 07:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - No, it's not. It's a fact that the discrimination is alleged. Not an opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't like that title. That opens the door for articles with the titles like Alleged Israeli violence against Palestinian children, Alleged discrimination against non-Jews in Israel, etc. This won't end the controversy. What's wrong with "Status of religious freedom in Malaysia"? OneGuy 08:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - I don't see the point of associating this article to other (future?) Israel-related articles. Btw, this article shouldn't be here on VfD in the first place if you had read Wikipedia:Deletion policy carefully. Articles which are POV needs cleanup and not deletion. --Andylkl 08:22, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
- We are not talking about article that needs "cleanup." We are talking about POV title that cannot be "cleaned up". That title has to be deleted completely once the article is moved OneGuy 08:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Then why is this article up on VfD in the first place? Any complaints regarding the title of the article should be discussed at the relevant talk pages and move on from there. A request placed in VfD is a request to delete the article entirely. --Andylkl 09:06, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
    - And what's wrong with those titles? If they're excessively long, redirect them. I see nothing inherently POV about them; they're valid encyclopedic topics. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - True, but in this case there are better titles available, like Human rights in Malaysia. There is currently no article with that title. This information should be part of that article OneGuy 08:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And if you manage to get it your way, there would certainly be too much information about discrimination to fit in an article about human rights or religious freedom, and it'll inevitably gets splitted. Back to square one. --Andylkl 08:57, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  - If (and that's an assumption since currently there is not even that article) the Human rights article needs to be splitted, it will have to be splitted to NPOV titled article, not this one. That's not square one :)) OneGuy 09:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes it's an assumption. But I'd have to say that avoiding the word "discrimination" (if splitted) is not really an option here, as the discrimination part are facts and not just mere opinions. Like what I've said in the talk page, the only thing POV with the title is the "against non-Muslims" part. =) --Andylkl 09:21, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
      - And as I replied, not everyone agree that discrimination occurs. That's your opinion, not a fact OneGuy 09:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's a fact discrimination does occur, but it's too loaded a word to appear NPOV. Counter-intuitively, it is NPOV, yet appears POV. That's why I think it should either be balanced out by "alleged" (or some synonym of it) or removed entirely. Btw, I've never heard anyone, even the most ardent defender of Malay rights disagree that discrimination exists; they just argue that it's fair and justified. Johnleemk | Talk 09:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - As an example: Not everyone agrees that 9/11 was caused by Al-Qaeda hijackers, does that make the current 9/11 article POV? --Andylkl 10:00, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
    - And what is the title of 9/11 article? September 11, 2001 attacks. The title doesn't even use the word "terrorist attack" (just calls it attack -- let alone Al Queda). That's NPOV title OneGuy 10:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - My previous comment wasn't regarding the title of the article directly. I think you do know what I meant. --Andylkl 10:52, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Retitle and keep (and then rewrite the article to match the new NPOV title) gK ¿? 08:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This is US state communication material: it is not an attempt at fairly reporting on the subject. It is fundamentaly biased for it is the expression of a country 1) at war 2) christian. Also, there is no point in blandly duplicating this material. IMO it's worth a link but not duplication in WE. Gtabary 11:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Have you read the talk? Most of the controversial material in the first place is not from the State Department's report. Also, we're not duplicating it. Look closely. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge or move. The US State Department reports are generally a credible source, and are public domain, but the article title isn't NPOV. The article content itself seems relatively neutral. Shimeru 20:42, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, diplomatic warning without context. Wyss 22:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
delete for the same cases as other discrimination against non-Muslims in some countries article. or at least retitle and restructure the sentences to adhere to NPOV __earth 00:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Change my vote to retitle or merge with other article. This is a human rights issue after all. __earth 05:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Conti|✉ 03:06, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Good info! --L33tminion | (talk) 06:41, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Retitle, and CleanUp. Needs to be conformed to NPOV policies. - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Megan1967 01:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Carrp 23:35, 18 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 result of the debate was

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia

Delete POV title ... and would we post on Wikipedia Iranian government report on Israel or the US? OneGuy 02:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV Title.... Zain 02:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote do not delete--Malbear 05:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Big POV. This is US state communication material: it is not an attempt at fairly reporting on the subject. It is fundamentaly biased for it is the expression of a country 1) at war 2) christian. Also, there is no point in blandly duplicating this material. IMO it's worth a link but not duplication in WE. Gtabary 11:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge or move. The US State Department reports are generally a credible source, and are public domain, but the article title isn't NPOV, and there is no need to duplicate large portions of the report — that's better left to Wikisource. Put what is useful into articles with more NPOV titles, leave the rest. Shimeru 21:47, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, diplomatic warning without context. Wyss 22:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Conti|✉ 03:06, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge! Good info should be preserved. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:40, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Megan1967 01:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Carrp 23:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge! Material is accurate and can be verified/validated against many other sources. However, should be incorporated into general article on Saudi Arabia.

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 result of the debate was

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Afghanistan

Delete How many non-muslims are there any way? Plus Taliban are gone and there is US back goverment Zain 01:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV title ... and would we post on Wikipedia Iranian government report on Israel or the US? OneGuy 02:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
vote do not delete--Malbear 06:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Big POV. This is US state communication material: it is not an attempt at fairly reporting on the subject. It is fundamentaly biased for it is the expression of a country 1) at war 2) christian. Also, there is no point in blandly duplicating this material. IMO it's worth a link but not duplication in WE. Gtabary 11:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge or move. The US State Department reports are generally a credible source, and are public domain, but the article title isn't NPOV, and there is no need to duplicate large portions of the report — that's better left to Wikisource. Put what is useful into articles with more NPOV titles, leave the rest. Shimeru 21:49, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is an historical warning without context, not encyclopedic. Wyss 22:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge to appropriate articles and move report to wikisource Pedant 22:11, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Delete. --Conti|✉ 03:06, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the information in the article is certainly notable (perticularly the destruction of the Bhudda statues in 2001). I'm in favor of merging. Deleting is not the solution here. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:35, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Megan1967 01:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Carrp 23:36, 18 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.

[edit] Twidalian

Dictdef of a neologism that gets no Google hits. Smells like someone named Twidal has a disgruntled employee. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete even though if I had a name like Twidal I'd be disgruntled too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although the guy in Lexx is called Stanley Tweedle. It's almost. Inter 22:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It was blanked and given a speedy tag by the only contributor, so I deleted it (I didn't realize it had be put here). FWIW, content before blanking was Unnecessarily complex, overwrought and prone to catastrophic failure. Often perpetrated in autocratic societies by despotic leaders. Usage example: "This DLC software architecture is twidalian. Let us run screaming into the job market!" A UML diagram will be added shortly to further explain the concept." Niteowlneils 23:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rolf

Some sort of game. The article doesn't mention whether you have to be drunk or not in order to take part, but it sounds like it would help. Anyway, no evidence of notability. sjorford 22:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. One step away from nonsense. - Jpo 00:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Possible prank. JoaoRicardo 04:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense, possible ad (though the person placed the hyperlink incorrectly). --Death phoenix 20:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic, WP not a game database, prankish. Wyss 22:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

An article about a commercial mascot for phones. Not notable. silsor 23:13, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep Certainly needs expansion but there are plenty of other advertising characters with articles. See Category:Advertising_characters Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
This may be my Canadian bias showing, but it seems that the characters in that category are well-known international or nation-wide characters, while the "Carphone Warehouse" seems to be limited to London, England. silsor 23:58, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure, as it's a bit outside my are of expertise (not a cel user myself) but they seem to be at least UK-wide, as they offer delivery to Northern Ireland and Northern Scotland. Maybe some kind UK-based Wikipedian could sort it out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  - The Carphone Warehouse is nationwide. I've never heard of Mowbli (although I have heard of Mowgli). But I haven't heard any Carphone Warehouse advertisements recently, either. Until the character ranks up there with the ITV Digital monkey, this article is simple stealth advertising. Wikipedia is not a means for avoiding having to pay Google's advertising fees. Merge. Uncle G 19:42, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Merge to company article. Gazpacho 23:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. Not so well-known as to be a valid part of popular culture, and not of any historic importance. We do have articles on advertising characters—notable, historic advertising characters, such as Sunny Jim, who is mentioned in virtually every history of advertising, and Snap, Crackle and Pop, who are cultural icons, and known nationwide in the U. S. for decades. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems likely that others (although admittedly not many) might be interested in this. - Jpo 00:13, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
- without being interested in the company? Gazpacho
  - It's possible. Sometimes advert characters can become more famous and notable than the brands they represent. For example, most people probably don't care whether they buy Morton Salt or not, but they likely recognise the girl on the package. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Carphone Warehouse and redirect. Otherwise it would be a non-expandable article. JoaoRicardo 04:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Mascot is not notable independent of the company now. In the unlikely event that it becomes so, recreate the article then. Putative future notability does not merit inclusion; otherwise we'd have to keep all the vanitycruft. —Korath (Talk) 05:23, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect based upon Korath's reasoning above (not notable, but recreate if it does). 23skidoo 07:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, merge and Delete, not enough cultural sway for its own article, which amounts to an ad. Wyss 22:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. Will be forgotten within a few weeks of their ceasing to use him. Buzby (BT's telephone bird) is memorable but don't get a mention on Wiki. And the animation on their web site is nauseating. RHaworth 06:58, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
Merge While there is (was?) a 30 ft high version sitting on top of their main store on the way in to London from Oxford, it's not well known and I doubt will last many more campaigns. A brief mention on the CW page will do. Dtcdthingy 00:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Now merged with Carphone Warehouse - excellent - much better. -- RHaworth 08:56, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

[edit] Jpauls

Absurd vanity. --LeeHunter 23:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete nonsense Gazpacho 23:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Um, what? - Jpo 00:10, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. JoaoRicardo 04:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --Death phoenix 20:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for vanity and mis-use of the contraction it's. Wyss 21:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stranz, Micheal J.

Vanity, all is but ... Uncle G 23:40, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Delete. He does have a healthy ego... - Jpo 00:09, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this Mercator wanna-be. JoaoRicardo 04:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Death phoenix 20:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a vanity romp. Wyss 21:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fig jam

Non-encyclopaedic The Roamin' Umpire 00:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic rant. Megan1967 00:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If "fig jam is jam made from figs" were the only content, I'd say Delete. However, the "FIG JAM" acronym is informative, and appears to have been in use (especially in Australia and New Zealand, it seems) for over a decade. Move to FIG JAM if we are to lose the dictionary definition. Uncle G 02:19, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Delete (Content is just a reword of the title). Even though the "FIG JAM" acronym has some (limited) notability, it's still a dicdef or acronymdef. Not necessary and certainly not enyclopedic. --Death phoenix 20:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 21:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If it actually is used then merge and redirect to one of several acronyms and internet slang lists we have. -R. fiend 08:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 13

[edit] Eachan

[edit] Roland Piquepaille

[edit] Beyond Devilous

[edit] Olivia Waters

[edit] Shadow the Hedgehog

[edit] Wikipedia:Anti-Censorship

[edit] Chuck Wakely Incident

[edit] James Worson incident

[edit] Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared

[edit] Current vote here

[edit] old vote -- a week before new vote -- administrator archived discussion without comment (20 delete 9 keep or rename: 69%-delete)

[edit] Erhan E Yildirim

[edit] Whitcomb Skunk Mullet

[edit] Ryo Owatari

[edit] US nuclear test causes tsunami

[edit] Micheli

[edit] Stray

[edit] Monster Media Ex and MMEx

[edit] Nguyet Anh Duong

[edit] Greenway (Middle-earth)

[edit] Sebastian Mankuzhikary

[edit] Matthew Mankuzhikary

[edit] South African Art Music

[edit] Discussion on poll method

[edit] Votes

[edit] Chris keyser

[edit] Rigo Murillo

[edit] Eddie Phanichkul

[edit] Benny Phanichkul

[edit] Erika Wilder

[edit] The Jonezes

[edit] Lithuanians in France

[edit] Consensus reality

[edit] Jesus horse

[edit] IPod killer

[edit] Robin SAunders

[edit] Special Operations Commander "Half-Jaw"

[edit] Driven to silence

[edit] Jason Gorman

[edit] HAOS.MULTIMEDIA

[edit] Nadir (The Illusionist)

[edit] Beverly fight

[edit] Jinkleberry

[edit] Col. Boyd on Warfare

[edit] The argentine experiment with a currency board

[edit] Soaper

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Sudan

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia

[edit] Discrimination against non-Muslims in Afghanistan

[edit] Twidalian

[edit] Rolf

[edit] Jpauls

[edit] Stranz, Micheal J.

[edit] Fig jam

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search