Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 January 14 1.1 Gulabjamun sandwich 1.2 Northern Indian Medical and Dental Association of Canada. 1.3 Gifting way 1.4 Locomotive Engineer 1.5 BigBlue Gear List 1.6 Route 128 (MBTA station) 1.7 Norwegian pink-nippled Eskimo bat 1.8 Brobdingnag 1.9 Matthew Staats 1.10 Carrie Lewis 1.11 LL2B 1.12 Dennis Chao 1.13 Joseph Hancock 1.14 The dangers of corset 2 Accuracy 3 Merge with Players 3.1 Love cushion 4 VfD 4.1 Fast mapping 4.2 Joseph Medill patterson 4.3 Geoff williams 4.4 Bizarre Social Mobility Movements in Egypt 4.5 Bah humbug 4.6 Paul Eldridge 4.7 Relapse Board 4.8 Alexander Seinfeld 4.9 Poetry of Jim Morrison 4.10 Potf 4.11 Jon Donnelly 4.12 The Biographical and Historical Approach to the Study of Brave New World 4.13 Byron Crawford 4.14 Greek city-states 4.15 Honey Bane 4.16 Imao 4.17 San Girolamo o Gerolamo 4.18 Jeff Shepley 4.19 Nefarious Gods 4.20 Ira Jones 4.21 Matthew shepley 4.22 Tim Samoff 4.23 Rainbow Vacuum 4.24 Joe byrne 4.25 Special Arson Reporting System 4.26 David E. Nichols 4.27 St Budeaux, Plymouth, England 4.28 Jason Crawford 4.29 Mind sport 4.30 Nukeworker 4.31 Harley "SwiftDeer" Reagan 4.32 The Far Field 4.33 Mike Novak 4.34 False Friends, Meaning 4.35 Blarg 4.35.1 Comments below are from the old VfD 4.35.2 New comments

[edit] January 14

[edit] Gulabjamun sandwich

The VfD notice for this was added to this orphaned article by an anonymous user back in December, but it never got posted. I agree with the assessment; it's not notable, and probably a joke. Cdc 00:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, trivial, un-encyclopedic. Megan1967 00:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as horridly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:13, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the 'joke' theory sounds probable to me. --InShaneee 17:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, probable vanity. "Early 21st century". That's nice. --Deathphoenix 20:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this joke (could be speedied as patent nonsense but it's benign enough). Wyss 21:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I love gulab jamun, but certainly not the gulabjamun sandwich. utcursch 08:39, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Indian Medical and Dental Association of Canada.

Not notable (however well-intentioned) organization. According to the article only 300 members, and only 150 currently active. Displayed google hits are limited to 4 websites, including theirs. Niteowlneils 01:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• "Only" 300 members is obviously notable. Keep. --Centauri 03:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• If we're allowing any and all organizations which have 300 members, most Usenet groups and Internet message boards would be included. This is not an acceptable level of inclusiveness. Delete. RickK 05:22, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

This is a registered non-profit organisation, not a message board.--Centauri 23:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with RickK. JoaoRicardo 06:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was actually going to vote to keep it - I do NOT agree with RickK's point of view. However then I noticed the use of first person in the article, which gives the impression that it's a self-promotion piece. If any newsworthiness can be found for the organization, 300 members or two, then I'd be willing to change my voice to keep with a cleanup/make NPOV provisio. 23skidoo 06:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just not noteworthy enough. The extra period (full stop) at the end is a nice touch... another Clerks./Adaptation. ? -- Curps 07:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as likely promo, advert as well as non-notable. We'd be setting a dangerous precedent to say a group with 300 members is inherently notable: the clan I belong to in Kingdom of Loathing has something like 10 times more members, and they sure as hell aren't encyclopedic either. Little trade orgs and clubs come and go like fireflies, and really don't belong in an encyclopedia unless they make news somehow. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Starblind's reasoning fully: delete. Stombs 13:46, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional, unencyclopedic. Wyss 21:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible advertisement. Megan1967 02:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a channel for promotion of associations. utcursch 08:40, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems noteworthy professional organization. Ollieplatt 07:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Axl 18:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- non-notable DCEdwards1966 04:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gifting way

Gibberish, with scant possibility of an actual article being possible. Uncle G 01:42, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable concept/term and deserves to have an article. But until someone writes something appropriate, this should be made a redirect to "Gift economy". Paul August ☎ 03:44, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced of the correctness of the redirect. Gift economy describes a type of economy, and various real-world examples of it. In contrast, Gifting way is original research that propounds a "natural law of economics" (If I were to suppose a "natural law of economics that has run the affairs of this world since its creation", I'd suggest that it was the first law of thermodynamics and point to the great big nuclear fusion reactor up there in the sky continuously pumping energy into the system.) and attempts to piggyback off a mainstream idea. There's no supporting evidence given for this "natural law", or even for a widespread agreement that this is what the phrase "gifting way" means in the first place; and the article reads more like a New Age manifesto than an encylopaedia entry. Uncle G 13:47, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
    • Yes the article as written makes little sense, but the term is, I think, a real and notable one. It has to do with Native American religion and cultural practices involved with hunting. Paul August ☎ 23:01, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • The term can't be "real" if it only gets 20 Google hits. The term, under this name, doesn't exist: nobody uses it. It's a neologism. If the concept is real, there must be some real actually-in-use term for it. But strip away the New Age POV and you'd probably just be left with gift economy. -- Curps 14:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The term is real, but people don't agree on what it actually means. As I said, there's no evidence, either supplied or locatable, for "gifting way" having a single meaning, let alone the meaning that is in this article, which seems to have been plucked out of thin air. As I said, there's scant possibility of an actual article being possible. Uncle G 07:49, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gift economy - I don't see much that is worth merging. Cdc 05:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yah, I'm thinking Uncle G above is right; a delete would be fine too. Cdc 23:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect, nothing worth merging. Gift economy covers it, and "gifting way" just seems to be a neologism that this person invented. All of 20 Google hits. -- Curps 07:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this term was invented by this author, as I said above, I think it is part of Native Americal religion and cultural practices involved with hunting, and as such it is not particularly surprising that there are so few google hits. Paul August ☎ 23:01, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Needs elaboration on its principles founded more in New Age spirituality than any "law", which are different from gift economy. Either a weak keep pending rewrite or redirect to New Age. Stombs 13:56, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gibberish duplicate of existing content. Wyss 21:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete new age claptrap. If someone has something meaningful to say about Native American aspects that somehow doesn't fit in with "gift economy", I'd be open to that, but the current article is not it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 02:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, This is an Old Way, Native, Aboriginal, concept that is not quite the same as gift economy. As the Old Ways are "relational" thinking as opposed to "reductionist" thinking I am obviously having a hard time getting the point across. I have edited it to try again. This is a notable term and my failure at communicating it will hopefully not be grounds for its removal. Ted 14:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • After your changes it is now even more of a POV essay, and even less of an encyclopedia article than it was before. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And with only 20 Google hits, even the term itself is something you just invented. -- Curps 14:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I find it quite interesting that if something does not exist on Google, then it does not exist. I would find that rather limiting of my worldview. For example you will not find the word "uuchunn" on Google. Does that mean it does not exist or is a neologism? For that matter isn't "wikipedia" a neologism? As for something being a point of view, what isn't? You are only the sum of your experiences, thoughts, and feelings, which are all unique to you. Any viewpoint you share with others is your point of view for that is all any of us have. I had wanted to "gift" some of my wisdom and knowledge back to the wikipedia community. At this point it is taking more energy than I am willing to put into it. I tried to explain this concept in terms that I thought you might understand. Apparently this has made it worse in your view? I had thought of wikipedia as a depository for concepts of a diverse cultural background and yet it seems that a concept much older than most of the concepts in this database is being labeled and censored by those unable to see outside of their own cultural box. As a user of wikipedia I find this dissapointing but enlightening as to the article process here. I am unsure if the viewpoints expressed here represent a consensus of the wikipedia community, I suppose time will tell. I wish you well on your project. Ted 17:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • There are lots of adherents to "New Age" spiritual philosophies, lots of people interested in native or aboriginal cultural values, and they are just as likely to create webpages as anyone else. It is clear that approximately none of those people use the term "gifting way". If something does not exist on Google, then it may exist... but it doesn't matter (ie, it is not encyclopedic). Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and while there is a place for opinionated essays or original research or advocacy, that place is not Wikipedia. Such types of material are excluded regardless of how well written they may be or the personal qualities of their author. Once again, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No original research. -- Curps 18:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Not factual, borders on patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nice to see the Wiki still works. hfool/Roast me 03:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It's a pity; it's like there's a good sociological point somewhere waiting to be made, buried under the rest of it. Delete. Lacrimosus 09:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• please see [discussion] Ted 15:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Thoroughly POV essay--which, I suppose, would hardly mandate deletion if this were an article on a properly encyclopedic subject. As it is, this is an original-research-y interpretation of various facts and beliefs that I suspect are covered elsewhere with better detail and in better context. This is mostly an attempt to promote an idea, which (regardless of that idea's virtue) is a no-go. My limited, reductive paradigm sez delete. Iralith 20:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

But the game itself isn't important enough to have its name mentioned, it seems. Uncle G 02:25, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• delete It's from Chrono Trigger, though that's a bit obtuse in the article. I agree we don't generally need articles on game items unless they're truly famous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:43, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete incoherent minor game trivia Cdc 03:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor trivia, may be an irritating spoiler. JoaoRicardo 05:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good game, doesn't need an article for every item. Rhobite 05:13, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Curps 06:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Legedary game, and this item is a huge part of the plot. However, it can't be talked about without spoiling the entire game, therefore shouldn't warrant a merge. Certainly isn't notable on its own. --InShaneee 17:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• There are spoiler tags especially for including spoiler stuff like this. If it's important to the plot I'd say merge and redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 22:32, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Megan1967 23:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Merge and redirect. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Locomotive Engineer

This is just a dictionary definition. I don't think it likely that an encyclopedic article could come out of it. Perhaps a small section at most in the locomotive or Engineer articles. The title is also in the wrong case. Thryduulf 02:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Are locomotive drivers called "engineers" outside the US and Canada? Gazpacho
  • In the UK, steam engine drivers are sometimes called Engineers. Its not a term I've heard used for other forms of motive power. Thryduulf 09:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • "Time flies by when you're the driver of a train, and you're riding on the footplate, there and back again ..." Oh. Er. Sorry about that. What were we discussing again? Ah, yes. Delete and let someone come up with an article discussing the profession and practice of train driving. Uncle G 12:42, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Dic def. JoaoRicardo 05:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary. However, since this text is almost non-content, my vote's for Delete. --Deathphoenix 20:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inept dicdef. Wyss 21:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to driving. Gazpacho 22:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it may be a substub now but the topic has potential. Should probably be moved to locomotive engineer, though. -- ckape (talk) 06:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if not improved; this is no better than a blank page. However, the topic can definitely justify its own separate article, as with any professional work. There's a lot that can be said, contrary to some peoples' opinions above. Their training, their work, common duties, history of the profession, the labor movement and labor unions, glamorisation of the job in relation to other railroad jobs, etc etc. Plenty of scope to link out to other articles and explain them from the locomotive driver's viewpoint. It doesn't really matter to whether it's at locomotive engineer or train driver; the latter is possibly comprehensible to more people than engineer, which does not mean a driver outside of North America. It is notable, though, that a British trade union for the profession is ASLEF, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, showing that the term 'locomotive engineer' had some currency in Britain at some point. —Morven 07:40, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe someone will come and write a decent article on this one day, but as it stands this is not worthy to be kept. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Gazpacho 22:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Everyone I know uses this phrase, and I live in the middle of the U.S. (Just to clarify usage). Delete as a dicdef. hfool/Roast me 03:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rail terminology, where it's defined. --SPUI 06:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BigBlue Gear List

A list of mandatory, recommended, and prohibited equipment for some survival race or another. The race itself doesn't have an article (or I'd recommend a merge instead). The race itself might be notable, but this list? --Kelly Martin 02:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, here we are: [1] Equipment lists for an adventure relay run in Oregon in June 2004, apparently there's another in May this year. This list is of no use; the event itself may or may not be notable. Raven42 03:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just don't think a list is encyclopædic, regardless of the notability of the race. Stombs 14:00, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not Encyclopedic. Lou I 18:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone is willing to write enough material for a BigBlue Adventure Race article (which sounds non-notable to me, but then again, I'm not a competitor). --Deathphoenix 20:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Part of a far larger adventure racing project, which links here. Merge would make this article cumbersome. Yes, there should probably be an article on BigBlue itself. If we deleted every article with an actual or potential red link we'd have a much smaller and more slowly growing Wikipedia. Andrewa 21:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a bulletin board or web hosting service. Wyss 21:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Do not merge this unencyclopedic list with anything. Delete any links to it instead. Alarm 01:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Route 128 (MBTA station)

See: Talk:Route 128 (MBTA station)

[edit] Norwegian pink-nippled Eskimo bat

Obviously a hoax. No google hits. Delete.-gadfium 04:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Fake, Delete it. KingTT 04:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Awww shucks, it's been deleted already! I wanted to see this - the title alone got me curious, hoax or no. Is this actually archived anywhere, or is it history now? (Please reply on my discussion page so it doesn't derail the thread). 23skidoo 06:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Many thanks - my life is complete now! ;) 23skidoo 22:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Seems like an extremely minor Star Wars character, no potential to become encyclopedic? --Paraphelion 04:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Rebel Alliance and redirect. JoaoRicardo 06:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Merge and redirect, the Rebel Alliance article lists senior personel, which this character isn't during the battles depicted in the movies but become senior staff later. I suppose it will work if the article is tweaked a bit to include some small history. Inter 07:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect if possible - David Gerard 17:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Megan1967 01:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Matthew Staats

Vanity page. Khanartist 06:03, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Author himself says he's not notable and the whole thing is a weak joke. -- Curps 06:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move into user space. - Vague | Rant 07:41, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy then delete, aren't we having fun. Inter 07:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete material more appropriate for a user page (or Userfy. Maybe they should make "Userfy" one of the possible votes on VfD).
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 21:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Has no place in an encyclopedia. Delete, may be worth preserving in BJAODN. - Mike Rosoft 20:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. KingTT 03:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carrie Lewis

Not notable. Khanartist 06:08, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• delete it. Orelstrigo 06:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Wonder what he did to his girlfriend that he needed to go to such great lengths to make up for it. Delete. - Vague | Rant 06:49, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Actually that was pretty sweet. I'm a hopeless romantic I guess. Inter 07:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speedily. If my boyfriend ever did anything this stupid I'd dump him. →Reene^✎ 08:20, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Delightfully and incurably POV. No encyclopedic content. Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker - Ogden Nash. Andrewa 11:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if it's kinda sweet. Stombs 14:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity (although it's obvious she didn't write it herself—if her boyfriend didn't do this because he's in the doghouse, he's certainly in the doghouse now for writing this). --Deathphoenix 20:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, tribute (I agree, this sounds like some sort of a ploy). Wyss 21:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LL2B

An acronym definition for something that has Internet presense mainly in blogspot.com. I think this refers to a non-notable company in Chennai, India, but it is hard to say for sure, given nearly total lack of context in article. See also other contributions by the anon who wrote this. jni 07:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and/or Merge, I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a promotion ground for a blogspot.com blog, but perhaps if there is any substance to the E-Administration related stuff it could be merged with said article. Inter 07:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete acronym dicdef that is non-notable outside of blogspot dot com. --Deathphoenix 20:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of widespread use even as jargon, possible stealthy ad. Wyss 21:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible advertising. Megan1967 02:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Sorry about the work that has now gone into the translation, but I still think this is non notable. I looked it up in the Cologne telephone register, and it doesn't even figure there Lectonar 07:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I think I'm gonna go with a keep here. The title "Akademie för uns Kölsche Sproch" gets 1220 Google hits, not so bad. Though I do think the article could use expanding and improving, I don't think it needs to be deleted at this time. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 07:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I also think it should stay. It's been around since 1983, and they have a long list of books they've published. [3] Saintswithin 09:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Its website koelsch-akademie.de indeed suggests that it's notable. Unfortunately my German is so appallngly bad that I can't distinguish between (a) what they are doing or sponsoring themselves, and (b) what they're merely advocating that's by others. Also, Aktuelles disturbingly shows nothing since September. No vote from me quite yet. -- Hoary 09:54, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC) PS Keep for reasons above and below. -- Hoary 02:41, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

• comment: I had a look at the website too...they are not sponsoring themselves per se, but there is a possibility that they don't exist anymore (that would correspond with the missing entry in the telephone register and the fact above) Lectonar 12:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant to say I couldn't distinguish between (a) what they're doing by themselves and (b) what they are merely publicizing. Incidentally, if they don't exist any more, of course that in itself doesn't mean they're not notable. -- Hoary 12:38, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Sorry by me; I didn't mean to imply that the (speculated) non-existence does mean that there not notable; I (obviously) still got problems with establishing the border between 'noticeability'/'non-noticeability' (see ongoing discussions concerning 'Sollog' (You know what I mean) or the whole Ashlee Simpson thingy). I just don't know if anybody in the english wiki would ever look up the term Akademie för uns etc... Lectonar 13:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re. existence: the last thing on "Aktuelles" says that they are about to move a couple of doors up the road, hence the non-appearance in the phone book and their failure to update the site. Saintswithin 19:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• They also just sent me an email saying they are alive and well! Saintswithin 09:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Definite keep. The academy stands as Herausgeber of several of the publications they sell.[4] They have also published recordings in dialect.[5] Apparently they also have archives and a library for Colognian dialect studies. That there is nothing new under Aktuelles just means that they haven't updated the website. A lot of respectable institutions neglect their websites occasionally. / up+land 13:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems more noteable than many pages here. Maybe the title should be translated into English. Martg76 17:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Kölsch (dialect) and redirect. It's mildly notable, but there's not enough info to provide an article. JoaoRicardo 20:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree there's not enough content, as of yet, but that can be fixed. In the meantime, stub it. Khanartist 21:05, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Merge and redirectas suggested by JoaoRicardo above. I could only see a separate article (with English title??) if there were lots more material on the academy itself.Sc147 21:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it and delete as above. Wyss 21:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, but I think this is a case where the title should not be translated. It is a proper noun, and to the best of my knowledge there is no standard English-language name for the organization. Certainly keep as a redirect a name someone might search on. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no valid reason to delete - David Gerard 17:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Megan1967 23:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it from English Wikipedia. There's a stub about the Akademie on de:, which is itself up for possible deletion. If this Akademie deserves a wiki-listing at all, I say it only deserves a German one. --Angr 16:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep not only because I translated it. I also don't think it should be merged with Kölsch (dialect) cause that one is a good article by itself. BigBen212 17:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Dennis Chao

psDoom was a fun thing, but ultimately not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Most of the text in this article appears to be a copyvio of [6]. Maybe it can be moved and made into an article about the application itself and not its creator, but the application is 4 years old and hasn't been updated since. Inter 08:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity. --Deathphoenix 20:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this isn't even UNIX cruft. Wyss 21:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Hancock

Seems like vanity of some sort. A web designer who made up a game. The common name means that a Google test is a bit of a failure, but I tried "Joseph Hancock" "After Era" (After Era being the game Hancock is said to have invented) and received no results. Delete. - Vague | Rant 08:02, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

After Era site that wasnt completely deleted: [7]

Archive.org Copy of Turn A that seemed to remain (most others have mysterously went away after years...): [8] He apparently didnt use the name Joesph Hancock on the pages...and if you do search google with "After Era" and "Marcus" A few links down you find it.

• Delete. The last sentence is a bit of a vanity-page give-away; he might as well have signed it. Not notable. Khanartist 08:09, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete, The whole article just sounds very vague and not to the point at all. Like User:Khanartist said, the last sentence is a vanity giveaway. Inter 08:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rambling blog about non-notable people and events, only contribution by an anon. No useful content. Andrewa 10:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 10:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity more appropriate for a uesr page (userfy?). --Deathphoenix 20:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bloggish vanity. Wyss 21:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not vanity. Look into Mobile Suit Gundam. A continuouing series from Japan, that much resembles that of Star Wars in North America. After Era was a web-based role playing game derived from that series. The guy is a legend around the Gundam role-playing community. And no, he didn't write it. Someone else from After Era did. Who am I? Well, just some knowledgeable bystander.

[edit] The dangers of corset

Actually the dangers of corsets, or the corset, or a corset. It starts: "Many books write about the damages from corset. But if it all was correct, the European was extinct." By my standards, that's patent nonsense, partly because there's no reason to think that even dangerous corsets would kill a very large percentage of their wearers before childbearing age, or render them unable to bear children (even our silly foremothers would have cottoned on), but mostly because what I regard as everyday knowledge tells me that a great number didn't wear corsets: rugged, sturdy peasant stock would have made up for the febrile city dwellers. Still, somebody might point out that there's a germ of truth in the description of the fears and some merit in the counterargument, and that the article could be rewritten for accuracy. But then it could all be in Corset. Meanwhile, it's unlikely that anybody would look up "The dangers of (a/the) corset(s)", so a redirect seems superfluous. As does this article. -- Hoary 09:38, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• I fail to see how this information would be relevant even in the corset article. It's mostly patent nonsense and somewhat POV. Would say delete. Inter 09:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The author appears to have invented a problem and then argues against it. Unencyclopedic, anyway. — Asbestos | Talk 10:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this one seems to have been machine-translated from the original Klingon. Although it has no encyclopedic value, it does have quite a bit of amusement value. Examples: "The doctor of vitorian era, do not the reason to many diseases and say in desperation: the corset is the cause of this disease." and "Some been tight in corset in too younge age." Some been write about corset at too younge age as well, it seems. Delete this. I'll find my frog.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:20, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Indispensable. Google say: Results 1 - 100 of about 30,800 for danger corset. But the most are nonsense and urbanity myths, which will choke the corset artikle. at 12:49, 2005 Jan 14, Haabet forgot to add "~~~~"Haabet 13:50, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Funny, but far from encyclopædic. Delete. Stombs 14:19, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense. Another bogus article by User:Haabet. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as cruft nonsense, gibberish. A cleaned-up version would inevitably duplicate content appropriate only for the main article. Wyss 21:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tightlacing. The section Tightlacing#Effects of tightlacing on the body cover this in far more than sufficient detail. "in a long-term tightlacer [the liver] might develop ridges where it rests against the ribs" but it is only a Victorian legend that tight corsets can cut the liver in half, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Tightlacing article points this out much better. --Idont Havaname 03:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another rambling, nonsensical piece by Wikipedia's corset-obsessed freak Haabet. Also note that this is yet again another "They won't let me have my way in the main article? Well, then, I'll create my own ..." article. —Morven 07:48, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another Haabet piece - David Gerard 17:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

from VfD:

This article describes a brand of cigarettes produced by Imperial Tobacco. Recommend merge. Inter 09:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep rather than merge. --JuntungWu 11:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, and add an entry to the Richmond (disambiguation) disambiguation page if absolutely necessary. Should we have an article on every single brand of cigarette?
• Merge. I would expect to find the information on the Cigarette page or possibly as disambiguation on Richmond (disambiguation). Maybe it would be helpful to have a Cigarette Brands page. In any case, the Richmond (cigarette) page is unneeded. Carrp 16:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Wyss 21:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I'd prefer a List of cigarette brands page over "Cigarette Brands". Watch the capital letters. I don't think most cigarettes differ enough from each other to warrant seperate articles. Make the list and redirect there. Put note on Richmond (disambiguation) and a link on Cigarette. Mgm|^(talk) 22:51, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Why not have a page on each brand of cigarette? You could describe the advertising campaigns and slogans of each, When the cigarette was first manufactured, list comparable brands, and show packaging, on even the most minor brands. Keep.
  • Unsigned, presumably by accident, vote left by User:Rhymeless
    • Yep, mine. Sorry about that.. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• And all these things are notable to public health, policy, marketing, tort law, etc. Keep Samaritan 00:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 17:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Yawn. Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 03:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge unless someone can add info that shouldn't be on the Imperial Tobacco page. BlankVerse 07:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Megan1967 01:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Accuracy

Makes a number of potentially libellous claims with no citations. Iridescent 11:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I smoke this brand, and must admit their association of poor quality. I have attempted to maintain NPOV in the small edits and cleanups I have made on this article. I am in the process of adding citations. Early Q 17:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Players

Perhaps this article should be merged with Players cigarettes? --Mrtobacco 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love cushion

Not notable: no google hits. 10:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Isn't notable. It's a discussion what bands might be notable, is it 1 cd out, 2? What kind of genre is more likely to be notable than others? How many fan pages is necessary, etc. Inter 10:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete. But I too am torn on indie bands. --ZayZayEM 11:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for indie bands, IMO encyclopedic is subjective and means evidence of a describable musical presence in the form of shows, recordings and experience. Bios and personnel histories are meaningless outside the context of the music: Not enough going on with this one. Wyss 21:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	Russia Portal Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 14 is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] VfD

from VfD:

Encyclopedic value?? --ZayZayEM 11:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, encyclopedic value. Kappa 12:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• There is disagreement between this article and both soviet (council) and Workers' council. This article draws a distinction between a "factory committee" and a "soviet". The others do not. I suspect that the root of the disagreement is a translation problem. I'd like to see evidence that the two are distinct, and that this should not be a Merge with soviet (council). Uncle G 13:03, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Keep, I believe this article describes something discrete from a soviet, they do predate Leninism and the article could be expanded further. Wyss 21:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Soviet (council). As it currently stands I dont think it merits having an article on its own. Megan1967 02:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely of encyclopedic value. It needs more contextualization, for instance what was the importance of these committees on the Russian Revolution, and what is their relation to the soviets? This can be addressed later, and a merge can be done if such is the case, right? JoaoRicardo 05:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Late comment: hehe, quite confusing is this soviet history, isn't it? `'mikkanarxi 22:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) from VfD:

[edit] Fast mapping

Torn between transwiki to wiktionary, or deletion. It doesn't seem to be that widespread of a term.--ZayZayEM 11:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki It gets nearly 7,000 Google hits as an exact phrase. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real term, not just a dicdef. Kappa 12:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting, and has the potential to be come a much bigger article. Thryduulf 17:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 21:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 02:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic value, potential to grow. JoaoRicardo 05:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Most of those 7000 google hits refer to a different meaning. Niteowlneils 17:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Joseph Medill patterson

The (mis-capitalised) husband of someone notable, but not noteworthy enough in his own right to have anything else at all said about him, it seems. Uncle G 12:47, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Delete. The real Captain Patterson (1879-1946) was a Chicago Tribune editor. Gamaliel 13:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Goings-on is not aplenty. Inter 14:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 21:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the husband of someone notable does not in itself make him notable. Megan1967 02:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, no matter whom he married. JoaoRicardo 05:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff williams

Nonsensical hoax. jni 14:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, This article makes no sense at all. Inter 14:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete patent gibberish. --InShaneee 17:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as silly vandalsim. Wyss 21:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It speedied it. So, delete, of course. Tuf-Kat 23:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre Social Mobility Movements in Egypt

A student writes. Not very original original research. MeltBanana 14:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and/or Delete, After reading it, I get the impression this might have been written by the person described in the article itself. That makes it somewhat vanity, however that wouldn't be a problem if the contents was sound and encylopædic. Something this isn't, at least to me. Some parts could perhaps be merged with the Egypt article under a trend heading or similiar. It isn't verified though. Inter 14:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bloggish, content doesn't really match the title at all. Wyss 21:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An interesting idea, but original research. JoaoRicardo 05:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, original research. Megan1967 23:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

[edit] Bah humbug

Merge? More like it was swallowed up, i came here looking for the term, and the ebenezer scrooge contain no reference nor explanation for it. Well done! 213.238.215.84 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Could never be more than a substub, and anything it might say in the future could as well be merged into the Ebenezer Scrooge article. -- Dominus 14:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as said by the submitter, it can't really be anything else and do we need an article about this anyway? Inter 14:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP as this is one phrase that has truly entered the public consciousness and is both well used and instantly recognisable to just about everyone. As an exact phrase on Google it gets 260,000 results, making it possibly one of the most well-known things to be put on VfD ever. The phrase and its meanings have clearly gone well beyond the original use by Scrooge, and this article could be expanded to reflect that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it has transcended i's original use.--Jirate 15:45, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Keep but improve as it's an explanation of a phrase that's a bit more than a dictionary definition but it needs to be rewritten for npov. Redlentil 16:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ebenezer Scrooge and edit for POV.--InShaneee 16:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The phrase is notable enough to have its own page, but the current description is very uninformative. Carrp 16:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, but I'm not sure where to. A Christmas Carol and Ebenezer Scrooge are almost duplicates in content. Given the high profile of the topic, perhaps pages needing attention is appropriate here. Current contents of this article are embarrassingly POV. Andrewa 17:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Worthy of an article, but needs major work. I've never heard of the context re:commercialization of Christmas. 23skidoo 18:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Ebenezer Scrooge. The whole point of the phrase is to recall the character. Gazpacho 21:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I can't see there being that much to write about about the saying, that it would detract from either the A Christmas Carol or Ebenezer Scrooge (a definite merge candidate there) articles.Sc147 21:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I can see the argument for it being worthy of its own article, but it would be far better served as a section of Ebenezer Scrooge and a redirect. The encyclopedic value would certainly be increased there. Smoddy | Talk 21:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect—same reasons as Smoddy's above. Stombs 01:36, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, needs definite cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 02:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Carl 02:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect for reasons listed above. --Idont Havaname 03:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ebenezer Scrooge. This has no potential to grow. JoaoRicardo 05:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge/redirect. Samaritan 08:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ebenezer Scrooge. The phrase is famous enough to be worth an entry, particularly since the various Wikipedia search facilities are not that great, but I don't believe the topic has any potential for expansion. What's there now says all that can be said. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect BlankVerse 07:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ebenezer Scrooge. The phrase is common enough that I can see how someone might be searching for its origins and/or meaning. Psychonaut 18:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Paul Eldridge

Someone is bullshitting us here. However, there appears to have been a Paul Eldridge (1888 - 1982), a "long-forgotten American poet" (see, for example [9]). The last edits, not yet reverted, to the New Orleans French Quarter, to Camden, Maine and to novel are also fake. <KF> 14:52, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

PS All I get from Wikipedia all the time is error messages, so I can't look up, or continue, the required procedure.

• Agreed, Wikipedia has been totally splanglepussing lately. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Appears to be vandalism. Unless proven true, delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, sneaky vandalism, lots of hoaxy symptoms here (oh, including a lack of evidence this person ever existed). Wyss 21:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can provide authentic references. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relapse Board

• I was going to revert what looked like vandalism, but the original is still defamitory and vain. Not sure if it could be rewritten, or is worth trying. It's been further updated, and it's definatly vainity. Should be a cut and dried Delete --InShaneee 04:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rapidly becoming an extension of this site, no encyclopedic content. Andrewa 16:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity/spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, probable vanity. Wyss 21:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyone can do a customized phpBB board and stick it on Wikipedia if we allow this one. Stombs 01:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Anyone can do a customized phpBB board and stick it on Wikipedia, which we should encourage, by not deleting this fantastic entryGunther 01:37, Jan 16, 3005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fascinating. The above signature was forged, but the user in question has no contributions at all. The IP responsible, not surprisingly, has several, all related to this incident. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 05:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Anons have now blanked both this VfD subpage, which I have reverted, and the page which is the subject of this vote, leaving only the VfD warning. There seems no point in restoring the subject page. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Seinfeld

DeleteThis is a vanity page, that seems to be focused on selling an obscure book by the individual. While it is noteworthy that he is a distant relative of Jerry Seinfeld, there are many relatives of Seinfeld who don't have wikipedia pages despite accomplishments equally as noteworthy if not more so. --Rexrexilius 06:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It's worth noting that the relationship to Jerry is third cousin, meaning (if used correctly) they have the same great-great-grandparents. This is a very distant relation. I knew a kid in grade school who was second cousin (or something like that) to Ulysses S. Grant. If we look hard enough, we're all related to someone notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, in effect, we're all cousins. I mean, I've got some famous distant cousins, along with a few famous direct ancestors. It's interesting, but not that unusual or notable in itself. This article is self-promotion, the topic isn't yet encyclopedic. Wyss 20:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Edeans 22:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-unless: A former rabbi, author and lecturer, now non-profit director, might be encyclopedic. The article, as written now, not explain how. Samaritan 22:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. I'm removing the reference the author of this article inserted into Jerry Seinfeld. JoaoRicardo 05:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, this is vanity. MicahMN | Talk 20:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry of Jim Morrison

This is an long (67kb) personal essay, also a note at the bottom suggests it has copyright which is not compatible with GFDL. Zeimusu 15:53, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• {{copyvio|url=http://litkicks.com/BeatPages/page.jsp?what=JamesDouglasMorrison}} Please run suspected copyright violations through Wikipedia's copyright violation resolution process, not VfD. Uncle G 17:32, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

This is an extremely valid article topic. Morrison is considered a serious minor poet in some literary circles (which is apparently how he saw himself by the time he died). Sadly, this attempt is poorly titled and probably a copyvio, Delete. Wyss 20:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 02:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Potf

Delightful piece of history, unfortunately non-notable. If only he had followed through with the forfeit, then maybe this would survive VfD. -- sjorford 16:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, probable vanity, will become part of my vernacular anyway. --InShaneee 16:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hilarious but not encyclopedic. Oddly enough POTF or PotF is a well-known abbreviation in some circles, referring to several popular lines of Star Wars action figures called "Power of the Force" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, by same contributor as next VfD article Lou I 18:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Haha that was fun. Inter 18:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial joke, not encyclopedic. Wyss 20:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Please delete this unfunny doodie joke. Edeans 21:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I like the old farting in the lift gag but this is not for Wikipedia. Delete. Stombs 01:39, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Donnelly

Vanity page - Lou I 17:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• delete - vanity. Thryduulf 18:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity and on top of that no encyclopædic value. Inter 18:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 20:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. PlasticBeat 21:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity, and a lost article to add to his consecutive lost bets. Megan1967 02:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Biographical and Historical Approach to the Study of Brave New World

Inherently original research. --Goobergunch|? 19:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "Personal essay," right at the top. Khanartist 19:49, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete, Oh no, it's on turnitin.com. Perhaps it's best that it remains there and not here. POV and personal essay. Inter 19:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal essay, the biographical section duplicates, and the analysis, while not original research, is unremarkable. Wyss 20:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Self-styled Copyvio. And since the subject, absent the essay, is not noteworthy (the approach to the study of a single work of fiction), Delete. Uncle G 21:10, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Kids, please don't post your student essays on WP. Delete. Edeans 21:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gently. Newbie's first attempt at an article. IMO no useful content, but we are all learning. Andrewa 21:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for being original research, a personal essay and POV. Tuf-Kat 23:22, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Byron Crawford

Vanity. Delete.-gadfium 19:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Deletion, Really. Inter 19:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Is Byron Crawford a real, notable person? This seems to be a badly-written article, and not a vanity. Uninformative and not encyclopedic, but that may be a weakness suitable for better writing, and not deletion. Delete. It appears to be on the blogger, thanks Niteowl. Not notable, and still badly-written and non-NPOV. Khanartist 21:01, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

  This article may be trying to describe the non-notable, vulgar, ex-con blogger [10]]. There is a local TV host by the same name, that doesn't seem sufficiently notable either[11]. Niteowlneils 20:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 20:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Poorly written vanity? Poorly written hoax? Equally irrelevant. Delete. Edeans 21:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. IMO a valid candidate for speedy deletion under case #3, pure vandalism. Alternatively it could be considered a test by the anon who contributed it (and has no other edits), but that's still a speedy, case #2. Obviously not everyone agrees, it was proposed for speedy before, but there is no record on the talk page as to why the speedy nomination was removed. Does anyone really think this is a good faith edit? Andrewa 21:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Now completely rewritten by yet another anon, who also then blanked this page (please don't). New version appears related to the old only by the name. Not yet a good stub, no change of vote as yet. Andrewa 01:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the new version. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 05:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep. - not vanity 14:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)Joe McPerson
  • Comment: That vote by IP 138.88.38.158, the IP who blanked this page before. Andrewa 18:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am sorry to have blanked the page, I was not aware of the procedure. The discussion I blanked I saw as irrelevent because the discussion focused on the article which was completely re-written. The votes wanted to delete an article which had been completely changed, so I figured they weren't relevent anymore. PS - your IP thing is messed up. I changed a lot of articles which don't show up in the articles my "contributions". And I can still see that those changes I've made are still on the pages I changed.
• Keep. (He's real.) 68.50.166.16 05:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)(Jim)
  • Comment: That vote by the IP as stated, with no other contributions. Andrewa 18:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - I'd like to bring to the fore a certainly relevant question: is it possible in any entry to retain a completely neutral point of view? Moreover, regardless of Byron Crawford's personal opinions, this entry, while certainly discussing Mr. Crawford, the Mindset Army, and his other pertinent dealings, does not necessarily espouse them. This entry merely calls attention to the fact that Mr. Crawford is a prominent member of the African American community. -- Johnny Whitewater
  • Comment: That vote by IP 65.29.191.214, who has one other contribution, an expansion to the Abraham Lincoln article. Andrewa 18:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Such issues have been discussed at length, and the discussion is not over, but here is not the place. Unless some verification can be provided, I'd still have to say delete. This verification can be provided in the article itself, or on its talk page. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 24.148.208.115 22:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)CMB
  • This user has 3 edits to the article and this VfD. Khanartist 22:13, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps even the author of the original article. Same IP, anyway. No verification yet, just BTW, and no change of vote. Andrewa 23:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notability, needs a major rewrite if kept. Megan1967 01:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete subtle vandalism, and the suspect votes by the various IP addresses lend weight to this vote. --Deathphoenix 03:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to be another little internet phenomenon. If it grows by a few orders of magnitude it may then earn an article, but meantime I'm afraid it will have to do it without our help. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

[edit] Greek city-states

Seems this article contains content that would be better covered by the History of Greece articles. In any case, this article needs a lot of copyediting if it is to be kept. --Ghewgill 19:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Anything salvageable should be Merged with History of Greece. Perhaps the user should be notified that signing articles is not proper wikiquette. Khanartist 20:02, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicates other content. Wyss 20:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like an editing experiment; duplicates other content. Edeans 21:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above. --Idont Havaname 03:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The fact that this was previously a red link doesn't seem to speak well for our coverage in this area. We most certainly need an article on this subject—many of them—separate from History of Greece. So keep until something better is written to replace it. Everyking 13:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The "What links here" tool shows that no other pages link to this page at this time. Where was the red link? --Ghewgill 16:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean literally. I meant that we didn't have an article on a subject as historically important as this. Everyking 16:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • List of ancient Greek cities appears to cover this niche more completely. --Ghewgill 17:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicate content on History of Greece and Ancient Greece. And the title is misleading, since the page is not about city-states per se. JoaoRicardo 23:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect to an appropriate article (History of Greece or Ancient Greece). The phrase is common enough that someone may want to search on it. Psychonaut 18:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ancient Greece. Megan1967 01:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

So... was somebody going to move, merge or delete this article? --Zytsef 08:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to History of Greece --Cornflake pirate 14:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honey Bane

Looks like another non-notable band page. — Ливай | ☺ 22:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• This entry apparently hasn't been listed on VFD, so I'm doing that now. Sietse 20:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, rambling band vanity. Edeans 21:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this vanity article about a someone's song. Wyss 23:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and it's a mess. - Jpo 01:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This band seems notable. "Honey Bane" gets 5,000 Google hits and they are featured in AMG. However the article is so clumsy it may be better to delete it and let someone start it over again. JoaoRicardo 23:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable Crass collaboratrix. chocolateboy 18:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imao

Vanity page or possibly fancruft on non-notable topic. Johntex 20:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence presented of notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • But it's both "popular" and "famous"! And it sells T-shirts! What more evidence of notability could you ask for? - Jpo 01:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not all blogs, especially non-notable ones, can have an article. Khanartist 20:31, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete this blogcruft. Edeans 21:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this blogcruft. Wyss 23:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Jpo 01:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - believe it or not this blog was nominated for a Washington Post Prize for Best Humorous Blog. It is also one of the top 50 blogs in the Truth Laid Bear ratings. We had this debate as I recall a couple of months ago which was lost. However, the article as written certainly does not establish notability. Capitalistroadster 08:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, re-creation of content that was properly voted for deletion in November, 2004 and deleted in process on December 3, 2004. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/IMAO.

[edit] San Girolamo o Gerolamo

An article in Italian about Jerome. It has been on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation for over three weeks and it has not been improved since that time. I think it has had its chance and should now be deleted. Sietse 20:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, basically duplicates content in Jerome. Wyss 23:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Existing English version is more in-depth anyway; this page, even if translated, offers nothing that isn't in Jerome. Stombs 01:41, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate article. Megan1967 02:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Shepley

Vanity. Delete-gadfium 20:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Ditto. Userfy and Delete. Khanartist 20:33, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Userfy and Delete. It's all been said. Inter 20:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Edeans 21:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 23:33, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as new user test. Wyss 23:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Not an encyclopedia article. Delete, possibly move into a user page (without a redirect). - Mike Rosoft 12:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This user has already transfered this content to his page and kind of apologized there. JoaoRicardo 00:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nefarious Gods

Vanity article on a group in another online game with no potential to become encyclopedic.Sc147 21:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Edeans 21:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, It's vanity. Inter 21:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Non-notable. Etc. PMC 23:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic cruft. Wyss 23:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 14 page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

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

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

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

from VfD:

[edit] Ira Jones

Nonsense. Should have researched more thoroughly. Looking better. Keep. Khanartist 21:18, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Comment It's mostly true, except that Ira was a guy, not a girl. Ira was Elvis' sergeant in the army. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

keep barely notable. Article needs complete rewrite. I'll try to make it at least a valid substub. Johntex 23:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment OK - I worked on the article. Please check it out now. I suspect if we leave it up some elvis fan will come along and improve it pretty soon. Johntex 23:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I still don't think it's very notable. I imagine that Elvis served with quite a few people while in the Army. I don't know much about Elvis, so if Ira Jones is in fact notable I'll change my vote. Amazon.com Khanartist 23:30, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Comment I can't believe I'm working on this article, but I've found more material. It turns out Jones wrote a book about his time with Elvis. He is starting to look a little more notable. Johntex 23:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this Elvis cruft. I wonder if that jeep had velour seatcovers or whatever? Wyss 23:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks Khanartist. Would you like to remove the delete notice and replace it with a "stub" or "attention" notice to help it continue to improve? Johntex 23:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I put in a general purpose stub, as "Musician" didn't seem to fit. I didn't remove the deletion tag, because I'm not quite sure what WP policy is in regards to that area. I'd be happy to, but is it kosher? Khanartist 23:52, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Keep based on monumental improvements to article as listed. Note: the book by Ira is real but very rare... I've never seen a copy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notability even if he was Elvis' sergeant. Megan1967 02:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm his great nephew.. I'll see if I can add some more info. Audiori 20:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Matthew shepley

Another vanity from the aforemtioned Jeff Shepley. Delete. Khanartist 21:23, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Delete, Inter 21:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. If some people spent less time trying to post their vanity pages, maybe they could go off and become notable. Johntex 22:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 23:34, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a user test. Wyss 23:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Samoff

This appears to be vanity, although Google does come up with some hits on some of these released albums. Inter 21:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

delete Johntex 22:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, self-promotion and my my my my, look at all those red linky winks. Wyss 23:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline notability, vanity. Megan1967 02:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• To my surprise, I was just told about this Wikipedia entry. While I am a registered user on Wikipedia, I didn't post this entry. Please delete it if you feel that it's necessary. Thanks, Tim (feel free to e-mail me at samoff[at]gmail).
• Delete. I don't know what the policy is for the subject of an article requesting its deletion, but my opinion is that it should be deleted in these cases. --Deathphoenix 03:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow Vacuum

Wikipedia is not an advertisement for Rainbow Vacuums. DS 21:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Vacuum cleaner. Khanartist 21:38, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Delete - merge would be OK also, but its not really worth our time to help people turn their deliberate advertising into content. Let them work for it by correctly working it into the article themselves. Johntex 22:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. If the contributor wishes to add NPOV material to the vacuum cleaner article that's fine, but I'd watch their POV rather carefully. Claims as to the merits of this particular cleaner (one of several currently using similar technology and sales methods) are particularly suspect. Andrewa 23:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 23:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. What Johntex said. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've tried to NPOV it but my vote is still delete. This one brand of vacuum cleaner is not notable enough to merit an entire article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe byrne

Article about a newly formed band which has yet to release anything or perform in public. Inter 21:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This band has made several releases and has charted on every occasion. Deletion in this case is totally unjustified, especially seeing as the site makes a mention of their support for a Tsunami relief fundraiser.

The band has made more than a dozen recordings, all of which have been released into the public domain. The fact that they have yet to perform live is of no consequence to their remaining on Wikipedia.

• If the anon user can provide notable evidence, I'll vote to keep. If not, delete. Burden of proof time. Khanartist 22:23, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

What sort of evidence is valid as proof? How famous must a band be to be deemed worthy of its own page on Wikipedia?

• The band plays its much anticipated first gig on the 29th January 2005 Firstly, this is POV - who's to say it's "much anticipated"? Secondly, the band is not yet notable - notability would generally involve having released music into the charts, or at least having had some kind of reputation from live performances. Come back when you're famous. Delete Smoddy | Talk 22:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The band has charted on several occasions and is gaining publicity in the local and regional music and regular press. The band has already had an article and two reviews in the NME (New Musical Express) as well as local papers such as the Journal, Shields Gazette etc.

Also, we can all do without sarcastic, facetious comments such as 'come back when you're famous'.

My comment was not meant in any kind of facetious way. My point was a totally serious one - the band are not yet famous (if you can prove me wrong with some references, feel free), and are thus not yet worthy of a Wikipedia article. I have no problem with famous or noteworthy bands receiving pages, but this page (which I think reads like a vanity) is about a band that is (all but unknown. If and when the band is famous, you can have a page. 'til then, no. Still delete. Smoddy | Talk 17:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If they've released music then the article should be edited to reflect that and point to the released music. As it stands the most notable thing in the article is that they've never played live. -- ckape (talk) 22:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete for the burden of proof reason given by Khanartist. (BTW to the anonymous respondent, please sign your comments otherwise I don't think they even count as a vote. I might be wrong. Use four ~ symbols in a row to do so. I believe you can still vote even if you aren't registered - someone please correct me if that's wrong- in which case your IP number will just come up.) 23skidoo 22:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Khanartist to delete unles anon cites some sources: newspaper article, chart listing, etc. Also, anon comments are suspect at best due to risk of POV conflict with wiki concepts. Johntex 22:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV has been removed. What now?

• Still recommend deletion until notability has been shown. DreamGuy 23:09, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Note that searching nme.com reveals no hits for Joe Byrne, and neither does googling. The article currently does not claim why this band should be of interest to anyone other than the people in it, nor is there any independent confirmation even of the band's existence. Thus, it is not verifiable. Tuf-Kat 23:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It turns out that there's a singer/songwriter named Joe Byrne [12] who has been playing gigs for many years, and has released 2 cassette albums and 1 CD album. He's obscure to me, but based on the article as it is, he is more notable than this new British band.

I way want to keep this one, but where are the citations?? Delete unless some evidence of those charted recordings and national press articles shows up. Wyss 23:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The singer-songwriter looks notable enough to me, and googling indicates some policeman involved with the Kelly Gang (whatever that is) who gets a lot of hits and may be notable. I agree with Wyss that a band supposedly covered in NME, with charting recordings, should get a number of google hits... I don't know how many, but let's start with one. To be frank, at this point, I don't believe this band exists. Feel free to prove me wrong. Tuf-Kat 23:45, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed my comment could be construed as putting words in Wyss' mouth, as he didn't say all that I said I agreed with him on. This is because I revised my comment considerably before saving, and didn't notice that I was agreeing with more than he said. We are nevertheless in agreement on the need for citations. Tuf-Kat 08:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

And indeed, even a few Google hits showing some hint of these "charted" songs would be enough to change my vote. Wyss 09:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there is no record of this group charting anywhere on the Top 40 charts database which is fairly reliable. The fact that they are yet to play their first concert where people pay to see them also makes me believe that they are notable. Tuf-kat referred to Joe Byrne in relation to the Kelly Gang. Joe Byrne was known as the lieutenant of the Kelly gang the most famous of the Australian bushranging gangs. He drafted the Jerilderie Letter which Peter Carey based his book True History of the Kelly Gang which won the 2001 Booker Prize. Orlando Bloom played him in a 2003 film Ned Kelly. I have created a page for Joe Byrne (bushranger). If we decide to delete this page, I would like to move Joe Byrne (bushranger) to Joe Byrne. If we keep it, I suggest we move the band to Joe Byrne (band) and change Joe Byrne to a disambiguation page. Currently, I vote to Delete and move Joe Byrne (bushranger) to Joe Byrne.Capitalistroadster 08:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with the move, as this Joe Byrne sounds definitely notable. The singer-songwriter seems ok for an article, but the bushranger sounds much more important and thus a disambig block would be fine (i.e. not a disambig page at Joe Byrne). Tuf-Kat 08:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and move Joe Byrne (bushranger) to its place. Also, thanks to Tuf-Kat's comment I just noticed that both Joe Byrne and Joe byrne exist and have nearly identical content, so I'd suggest handling them both at the same time if policy allows it. It turns out that Joe Byrne is also the name of an elected official on the Northern Ireland Policing Board and in West Tyrone (constituency). -- ckape (talk) 03:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special Arson Reporting System

Not encyclopedic, too country-centric. Luigi30 21:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Can probably be merged with another article, but as it stands now I can't even tell what country this applies to. 23skidoo 22:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a datadump or criminal law reference. Wyss 23:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I guess this is US law of some sort. Strange title, content useless unless the context is given. First ever edit by this IP, so perhaps give a little more time. No vote as yet. Andrewa 00:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic. I seriously hope WP doesnt become a dumping ground for every lawbook statute. Megan1967 01:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The text does not directly refer to the title. Axl 12:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

[edit] David E. Nichols

This guy does get a number of Google hits, but he seems no more significant than any other college professor. Smoddy | Talk 21:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• What links here: escaline (he first synthasized and reported it), Bromo-DragonFLY (it was first synthesized in his lab), entactogen (he first coined and defended the notable and apparently controversial term). Notable; needs expansion. Keep. Samaritan 22:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

keep Needs expansion Johntex 22:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it's helpful, could use bio. Wyss 23:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added a stub notice and some of the above details. Andrewa 00:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, in need of expansion. Megan1967 01:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

[edit] St Budeaux, Plymouth, England

It sounds like a really swell place, with a pub, a library a couple of schools and a church. Just like every other neighbourhood in the UK. --BesigedB ^(talk) 21:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this has as much right to be here as the thousands of other Wikipedia articles on small towns and villages. Needs some clean-up and reformatting, though. 23skidoo 22:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, you're right. If the submitter hadn't included the cruft I would have UK-stubbed it and moved right along :) --BesigedB ^(talk) 22:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

weak keep maybe it will become useful someday. Johntex 22:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it. Wyss 23:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if only for the line: There is one library in St Budeaux called St Budeaux library. - Jpo 01:23, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge relevant content to Plymouth, England; keep only if it's an actual city (I know little about England, so I wouldn't know about this.)--Idont Havaname 02:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless someone has evidence that this location does not exist. —RaD Man (talk) 03:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do not merge. Many people live in St Budeaux, which is more than can be said for many of the places Ramspammed here. Dr Zen 05:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ramspammed. I like it :) --BesigedB ^(talk) 16:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Jason Crawford

One guest appearance on television (check the IMDb). I'm fairly certain that's not notable. sjorford 21:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

delete Johntex 22:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Smells like a vanity, and not notable. Khanartist 23:22, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete, probably innocent self-promotion. Wyss 23:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep (I think that's the first time I've ever issued a qualified vote). I think this just scrapes in. Probably most useful in verifying that his career didn't take off after this one significant role, but that's valid and interesting research data in itself. Andrewa 00:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are thousands of 'actors' whose careers don't take off after a single role. That's the nature of the business. Doesn't make them notable in any way unless they do something significant afterwards. Xezbeth 07:23, Jan 16, 2005
• Weak Delete, not notable, borderline. Megan1967 23:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep LOL @ "weak keep"

02:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)Joe McPerson

KEEP Jerzy(t) 05:00, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC) 

[edit] Mind sport

I will switch my vote from Del to keep in the event of so far absent evidence of notable acceptance of this term. The only support put forward is

• a 7-year-old org'n promoting the concept of the venerable practice of board games and pencil recreations as "sports", which is evidence less of acceptance than of some among us "mental athletes" being jealous of the public's attention to more visible forms of excellence; the split among the organizers and the allegations against 1/3 of those found worthy of mention suggest the likelihood of a state of disarray.
• some vague "recognition" of FIDE by the IOC -- perhaps recognition that cooperation with FIDE might somehow be a way for IOC members to turn a few more corrupt bucks from their status, for all i know.

Further, the language i edited out, and the placement of Category:Mind sports in Category:Sports but not in Category:Games suggests this is an evangelistic project for a PoV.
--Jerzy(t) 22:42, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Nominator Retracts Del vote, see below. --Jerzy(t) 20:15, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

• Delete, not a widely used or even helpful category. Wyss 23:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fascinating. The term appears to me quite widely enough used for an article; The fact that it's not universally recognised makes the article even more useful to those like me who'd never heard of the term. The motives of the contributors are not relevant so long as the material is encyclopedic. Andrewa 23:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I intended to rebut the presumption that someone bothering to create an article is some evidence of notability. I happen to know of a crystal-clear precedent showing it can be relevant in that way: evidence of bad faith changed a 1D-2K-1Abst vote to a 3D-0K-1Abst-1Neutral one. (Not actually 3-1; the closer misconstrued a Neutral vote.) --Jerzy(t) 19:47, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
• Keep dorky but has an acceptable level of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: really needs some citations, but I have heard the term before. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible you're thinking of mind games? Maybe not, but thought I'd ask to be sure. Wyss 06:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure, we used this term clear back circa 1970 when I was involved in high school math competitions. We even had team jackets and letter sweaters. How's that for dorky? -- Jmabel | Talk

• Weak Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Andrewa, just because it's interesting doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. The information might be better served if mentioned in the Mind Sports Organization article, as what they call mind sports. hfool/Roast me 03:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as Dab (or at least as Redir). (I have retracted my vote, in nominating, for Del.) On reflection, and since i don't contest the org's article, and since the org's name is less memorable than this phrase that it promotes, i'd like to see this become a Dab between Mind Sports Organisation and Mental-skill game (which should include links, derived from this article's list, to categories of such games, including those not played by the org'n). Note this article's list can't be merged with the org's article without research to distinguish MSO games from other mental games. --Jerzy(t) 20:15, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Final votes: Delete: 2 Keep: 5

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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. </div>

[edit] Nukeworker

This is claimed to be a neologism apparently solely so that this web-site advertisement can be shoe-horned into Wikipedia. Aren't all of the Google hits for the website directly and the hyperlinks from List_of_nuclear_reactors enough? Uncle G 23:02, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Delete, neologist platform for an ad. Wyss 23:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Wow, 43,500 Google hits for a trademarked neologism. My immediate reaction was delete, but now I'm wondering what's going on here. No vote as yet. Andrewa 23:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like proficient Google bombing to me. Wyss 00:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Google citations are sparse, once you exclude references to nukeworker.com and the unrelated nukeworker.net ("The one stop shop for ionizing radiation dosimetry professionals!" Um, OK). - Jpo 01:18, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 06:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

[edit] Harley "SwiftDeer" Reagan

Hoax. See http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/frauds/frd0011.htm. Use of "soke" is inappropriate here, as well. RickK 23:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Hoax. Delete. Khanartist 23:59, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete scathingly, self-promotion, seems like particularly abusive hoaxing and taken all together, should probably be speedied. Wyss 00:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Jpo 01:04, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Modified article. It's not self-promotion any more. I'm not sure of the importance, but this person has been newsworthy, and a Google search reveals the widespread controversy surrounding him and what he sells. Weak keep. Uncle G 01:10, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
• He's a hoaxer and a fraud, but he's an at least moderately well-known hoaxer and fraud. I don't see any reason he wouldn't be an appropriate subject for an article. Weak keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm too tired. Someone else please check Chulukua-Ryu and Rattan (weapon), submitted by the same user at the same time. Uncle G 01:41, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] The Far Field

Um, a poem? This really should have been speedy deleted, but I listed it instead. RickK 23:43, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

• which is a pity as I was quite happy to speedy it on grounds of irrelevance, copyvio, and general tosh'ness. Vamp:Willow 23:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It's by Theodore Roethke, a notable poet. The article should probably be about the volume of poetry itself, in which this work appeared. Khanartist 23:55, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete as original lit/poem, could be speedied. Wyss 23:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Once something is flagged 'VfD' (as opposed to 'speedy') it has to wait its time --Vamp:Willow 00:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not if it's a copyright violation. We can list it on Copyright problems and put the copyvio boilerplate on it. I'll do that now. RickK 00:03, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 01:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Novak

Apparently non-notable person. Google returns 6,640 hits for "Mike Novak", but many of them appear to be unrelated. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but this article does not establish notability. Also, vanity article. --Goobergunch|? 23:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've speedied this personals ad twice already tonight ... this is now the third time it has appeared and I was about to again (hey, he might give up!) but now it has the VfD on it will have to sit out and wait its turn a while ... --Vamp:Willow 23:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see any Google links matching the person described. Vanity. Delete. Khanartist 00:01, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't even claim notability, much less establish it. - Jpo 01:02, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity K1Bond007 01:05, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity article PaulHammond 13:04, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False Friends, Meaning

Looks like a hoax. JoaoRicardo 00:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nonsense. And not what a false friend means, anyway. Delete. RickK 00:02, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Worse that just nonsense, this is a repeat of vandalism of False friend; see the history of that article. --RoySmith 00:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Jpo 01:01, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever it is, it's not encyclopaedic. Delete --fvw* 02:19, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Hi!,

This is not a hoax or joke!

I was raised by my Father and Mother to believe in this and I really do!

It is common in Italian Families like mine and I have many family members who agree! The other definition of False Friends is about False Cognates in languages. This definition is very different! New friends who act like False Friends are not allowed around me or other family members! This is a way to detect "Hidden Enemies" or what they call "A Snake In The Grass"

Supercool Dude 01:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Assuming that Supercool Dude is right, this is still not encyclopedic. Delete. Khanartist 03:12, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
• Delete. This user seems to be creating a large number of unencyclopedic or dicdef articles... and they're all completely unwikified. -- Curps
• So what we have here is an article that basically says "a true friend likes you, a false friend doesn't". Wow. Delete. -R. fiend 08:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see anything encyclopedic in this. --LeeHunter 16:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blarg

Dictdef of what is essentially not even a word so much as an emotional onomatopoeia. Tosses in a secondary sense from the Jargon File but that still makes it a dictdef. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I ran across this during RC/New Page patrol, I'm not sure if it was never closed out in January or what but this is a different usage of the word. When I added this new page here the old entry populated the entry. I left them here but the old votes are meant for the old page. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blarg for more description if you're interested. Rx StrangeLove 03:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Not appropriate to have here instead of on Wiktionary. Not a word. Not much more than advertising or fanboy cruft. Not factually correct in that the "word" has been around for about as long as human vocal system has been capable of producing the necessary sounds. ;) Take your pick; one way or another, this needs to go! —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I have been using this word long before 2003 Towel401 14:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Comments below are from the old VfD

• Doesn't seem to have any significance, unless it's also some bit of sci-fi fancruft that I don't know (I doubt it would be). Delete or perhaps redirect to metasyntactic variable, since it's listed there. --Idont Havaname 02:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I once saw a guy get frustrated and yell "YORG!" at the top of his lungs, but I doubt that would justify an article. Merge the computer-related def with an applicable article and delete the rest. 23skidoo 07:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Metasyntactic variable. Megan1967 01:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a metasyntactic variable, so merging it there would lessen the quality of both articles. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] New comments

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Maybe copy to wiktionary if it's acceptable there. →Raul654 03:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; or maybe a redirect (no merge) to Blargg as a misspelling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)