Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 15

[edit] Peng wang

Article is a vanity page and has no encyclopedic value. --Sarcasticninja 19:22, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, vanity. Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A long way from being noteworthy, if it's possible.--InShaneee 21:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Melaen 23:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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 has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

from VfD:

[edit] Eileen Saki

According to [1], she only had a minor role as Korean Woman, Rosie was played by other actors. Probably sneaky vandalism considering the article creator's other edits. --fvw* 00:22, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Or maybe not vandalism, John Orchard does appear to be legitimate. Still, the actual Eileen Saki isn't notable in my opinion, and even if she was this article would not be a useful start for an article about her: Cleanup would leave a blank article. --fvw* 00:35, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a guest on a TV show can confirm notability given that the person was notable outside the show, but it certainly doesn't guarantee notability. --Idont Havaname 02:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I dunno. If we can keep articles on baseball players who played once in the majors, we can have a minor actor with several roles. I say keep  The Steve  02:57, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Dar Bandar

Non-notable band. Hard to figure out how many Google hits they get, but all hits for "Dar Bandar" only amount to 73. RickK 00:48, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --fvw* 00:51, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. We're not running a fan site here. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we aren't free advertising for unknown bands. --Idont Havaname 02:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability is established and this is verified. I don't see any google hits for the band, except maybe some old imports of our own 1973 in music and other years. Thus, delete for unverifiability as well. Tuf-Kat 19:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taco the Wonder Dog

Nonnotable website. Now defunct, and still nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is (still) not a guide to Something Awful. —Korath (Talk) 01:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Google gives 305 hits for the term in quotes: appears to have had some notoriety as one of the "worst" (and, therefore, cool?) sites. Needs to be neutral and, if kept, has to discuss why it did have notoriety. Otherwise, I vote delete, especially in its present form. Stombs 01:22, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, borderline notability. If the website is defunct now I suspect there will be very few additional Google hits in the future. Megan1967 01:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll side with Korath. Delete. --Idont Havaname 02:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave. Oh please. Taco's site has had nothing to do with SA for about 2-3 years before it went defunct. And besides, you don't see anyone VfD'ing JeffK. I've seen vastly more irrelevant things around here. DooMDrat 05:39, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then nominate them for deletion, too. Uncle G 14:56, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
      • Yes indeed, if you think there are irrelevant articles on WP then please do nominate them. The argument that because X nonsense exists therefore Y nonsense must also exist just doesnt make sense (unless of course there has been a previous VfD on X which approved it, and thats what VfD is for). Megan1967 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Everybody knows" that it's actually Gaspode who is the Wonder Dog. (-: Uncle G 04:52, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete. But I have to sympathize with the argument that there is lots of irrelevant stuff on Wikipedia, so why pick on <fill in the blank>? And telling someone to nominate stuff they think is irrelevant or nonsense for deletion is a bit disingenuous when a lot of the irrelevant stuff has already survived VfD, sometimes three or four times. --BM 22:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't believe a "lot" of irrelevant stuff would have made it past four times. Wikipedian editors aren't that gullible and it's up to voters to ensure that the irrelevant articles dont hang around very long. Because only a small percentage of editors actually vote, it becomes problematic when an article has some emotional/political attachment and someone voting sees that it is up for VfD. Megan1967 00:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 300 Google hits is practically nothing for something that is actually supposed to be notable on the internet. I have sites that are approaching that range. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chilango

Slangdef. --fvw* 01:50, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

I agree. It would be better off on Urban Dictionary. -- Luffy 8:57 PM EST, January 14th

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

The result of the debate was - kept

[edit] Martin Luther King, Sr.

  • Not very encyclopedic. Says nothing except that he has the same name as his son only the title is different. Does not have his birth year, death year, etc. that can make the article more useful. Georgia guy 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable even if he was King's father. Megan1967 02:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongest keep! Rev. King Sr. was also pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, and apparently also a social activist. Author and subject of Daddy King: An Autobiography, published by a major commercial publisher in 1980, and subject of Not Only Dreamers: the story of Martin Luther King, Sr. and Martin Luther King, Jr., published by the Church of the Brethren press in 1986. Obviously highly notable and expandible. Samaritan 06:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Paul Robeson is a recent case of someone who, while highly notable on his own, might not be quite notable enough to warrant articles on his close relatives when they accomplished nothing notable in their own right. MLK, however, is definitely notable enough for his close relatives to qualify as notable by association. Everyking 12:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep that one. Grue 13:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. His widow is notable in her own right, but not his father. In practice the only case where close relatives become notable enough to warrant articles of their own merely by existing are children and wives of the President of the United States, but only because they are inevitably turned into minor celebrities in their own right by the media, like Chelsea Clinton or the Bush twins. Other relatives of the President only become notable if they get in trouble like Billy Carter or Roger Clinton. And in the case of anyone other than the US president there is no coattail effect at all. Note Bill Clinton's mother is not in Wikipedia, why should MLK's father be? He was a pastor and a decent man, but that's not enough. -- Curps 14:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No, that isn't enough, but being MLK's father means he has a certain level of notability and fame. Everyking 14:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • He's no more notable or famous than Bill Clinton's mother. A better case could be made for the father of Venus and Serena Williams, because he actually accomplished something notable in his own right by coaching his daughters his own unique and unorthodox way... and he's not in Wikipedia. MLK Sr. isn't notable merely for existing, that's absurd. -- Curps 14:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, what about an article such as Alois Hitler? It think that when people reach a certain level of fame, there is so much historical interest in them that their close relatives become notable merely by association. Everyking 16:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • A very well written article, but I suspect it never would have been written if not for the stories and rumors that Hitler's real name was Schickelgruber, that he might have Jewish ancestry, and the whole circumstance of him being Austrian by nationality rather than German. Rather than entitle an article as "Hitler's family origins" or whatnot, it's more convenient to create an article about his father and put it there. Well, if an article about MLK Sr. ever reaches that level I suppose its existence might be justified in a way, although it's not a promising start at all. -- Curps 18:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Agree with Curps. Also Wikipedia is not genealogy or a memorial. Unless Martin Luther King, Sr has done something notable in his own right - being a church pastor and author of one book published by a church doesnt fall into that category. What next? A list of every church pastor and authors of church publications on the grounds that they are "notable", doesn't augur well for the future of this encyclopaedia. Megan1967 01:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • Megan1967, as I wrote, his autobiography was published not by a church, but by a major commercial publisher (William Morrow & Co.) I noted specifically that the Church of the Brethren (through Brethren Press) published the book half about Rev. King Sr. (and his son) because the Church of the Brethren is so many worlds apart from Rev. King Sr.'s African-American church - it's predominantly a bunch of German emigres! This shows general notability in the context of American Christianity far outstripping most pastors. Samaritan 02:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Regardless of what church, it still doesn't make him notable in my books. Megan1967 23:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep regardless of what it looks like now. Just because it's not in very good shape at this point doesn't mean it can't be. No reason to delete; just fix it up. Ridethefire3211 14:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - "notability" is still not a primary criterion for deletion, and this isn't a delete as per the policy - David Gerard 15:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if not notability then there needs to be just plain fame or celebrity (in one's own right, however earned). Anna Nicole Smith is a textbook example of celebrity without notability, but mere celebrity makes her encyclopedic. MLK Sr. was never a celebrity in his own right. -- Curps 18:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Certainly it's a borderline thing (which is why it's on VFD). But this would be an unsightly lump on the side of the MLK Jr article - David Gerard 19:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is a very basic stub, but could expand still. King is definitely noteworthy. Smoddy | Talk 17:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Being MLK's father doesn't make him notable enough, though it helps, but if everything Samaritan says is true, I think there's a worthy article waiting to be written. Tuf-Kat 19:12, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Tuf-Kat; it seems to me that there's enough out there to warrant an article. --Sarcasticninja 19:34, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since MLKJr is important enough to have his own national holiday, I'd say his immediate family is important enough for a small article as well. I think it could also be a useful article as well, as MLKJr is the subject of tons of school reports, especially by kids. Thus, the more information we have on him and related subjects, the better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. Curps is not correct. "Daddy King" was indeed notable in his own right. Besides being a significant preacher he was a social activist and a patron of Morehouse, a traditionally black college of high significance. I think that a vote for MLK Jr's father would be in order even if this were not the not the case, actually, for the same reasons as Starblind and Everyking, above. No, there's not much at this entry at present, but just because Wikipedia is woefully deficient in African American subject matter at present is not a good enough reason to delete. We've got "articles" on record albums, for crying out loud! Quill 22:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Infrogmation 23:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although some destubification is in order. -- Itai 00:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I disagree with keeping Paul Robeson's parents, Reverend King, Sr. is sufficiently notable in how own right. This article needs work, though. See [2]. RickK 00:14, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ElBenevolente 02:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. MLK, Sr., was a prominent pastor of historic Ebenezer Baptist Church and a local civil rights leader -- as well as the most influential figure in the life of his young son, MLK, Jr. The article will be fleshed out in time. deeceevoice 03:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 03:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Martin Luther King Jr. has written that the influence of his father was highly significant in his decision to join the ministry and become active in the civil rights movement. King Sr. was pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church for 40 years with his son joining him in the ministry. He was also President of the Atlanta NAACP leading campaigns for wage equality for local teachers and against Jim Crow laws. King Sr. also paid a crucial role in persuading the black community to support Jimmy Carter's campaign for the Presidency in 1976. He read the invocation at the 1976 and 1980 Democratic National Convention and wrote an autobiography released through a mainstream publisher. I have added all of this information and more to the article. Capitalistroadster 04:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As always, Capitalistroadster makes the voting easy. I think I'll give him a barnstar. The Steve 13:00, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though not as famous as his son, he still seems notable, with some high-ranking positions, notable awards, and an autobiography. Psychonaut 18:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article!--Seth Goldin 18:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article. It currently contains a lot of information and seems encyclopedic. King Sr. appears notable in his own right, regardless of his son's accomplishments. --asciident 18:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. I agree completely with Capitalistroadster and Asciident here. WikiFan04 15:15, 17 Jan 2005 (CST)
  • Keep this is nuts, on MLK's birthday no less. -Ld | talk 23:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks good to me. Kaldari 00:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Sarge Baldy 05:01, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If Roger Clinton and Jamie Lynn Spears have articles, I don't see why MLK Sr can't have one.Lokifer 04:38, 22 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 Creeping Crud

Delete, crudcruft. (OK, OK, I just wanted to a chance to say "crudcruft," the real reason is "dicdef.") Rather schizophrenically, I am nominating this for deletion just after editing it for language, and to improve the accuracy of the first definition. However, having done that, what I now have is three meanings for "creeping crud." Well, the first meaning I know is correct, and is vouched for by Wentworth and Flexner's slang dictionary. But I just don't believe the second and third. That is, I don't believe "creeping crud" as a nickname for slime mould, or as a substance used to clean electronics, are in wide use. Remove these two and you're left with a dicdef. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Curps 05:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a common enough term for fungial infections. If there's a generic article on those, redirect, otherwise, delete --Carnildo 02:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(Not that it matters, but if the article is kept or made a redirect, it should be moved to Creeping crud per naming conventions... Dpbsmith (talk) 03:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC))
  • Abstain for now. Agreed, if it stays it needs to be renamed and rewritten. Megan1967 01:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dpbsmith's summary --RoySmith 04:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jaclyn Dowaliby

Non-notable murder victim. 240 google hits [3].

  • Delete. dbenbenn | talk 02:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with respect for the dead. If there's any article into which this could be merged i.e. Chicago Murder Victims (I'm too lazy to look for one myself) then that would be OK. 23skidoo 03:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge if possible, and delete. Khanartist 03:57, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, or maybe merge somewhere. (But at least she was killed; Kevyn Wynn gets an article thanks to having been kidnapped, and returned "before the authorities even knew she was missing". Is this TrueCrimeOpedia as well as Fancruftopedia? Er, sorry for that digression.) -- Hoary 11:03, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge if true. Factual articles should not be deleted. Grue 13:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if there's a reference. No reason to delete if it's verifiable - David Gerard 15:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    The information does appear to be verifiable, based on Google. And she was a subject of a made for TV movie, Gone in the Night. As far as I can tell, those are her only two claims to notability: getting murdered, and having a TV movie. I guess the point is, do we really want to have an article on everyone listed at [4]? (You have to scroll a few pages down for Jaclyn.) dbenbenn | talk 18:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I see no reason why not. Wiki is not paper. I'm not all fired up about creating such, but not wanting them specifically is not the same as requiring their deletion. - David Gerard 17:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable crime victim. Factuality does not equal notability, no matter how often the radical inclusionists may say so. RickK 00:18, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, my sympathy to her relatives but she isnt that notable enough to warrant inclusion. Wikipedia is also not a memorial. Megan1967 01:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. JoaoRicardo 05:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Idlewild manager

Delete -- The topic is not notable (see Talk:Idlewild manager). If desired, merge with Microsoft Entertainment Pack.

-- UTSRelativity 03:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This does not seem like an important program. JoaoRicardo 05:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avrilsexuality

Non-encyclopedic. Plop 04:51, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A neologism coined a few days ago is by definition non-encyclopedic (note copyright 2005 on external link). -- Curps 05:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. dbenbenn | talk 05:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Not in wide use. Also, personal essay which probably cannot be made NPOV without losing all meaning. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic and reads like a personal essay. Khanartist 01:25, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, silliness.Silly Dan 02:24, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I did know a woman once who said, "I'm not bisexual, I'm heterosexual plus Sylvia-sexual". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rubbish. Axl 12:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed; rubbish. -- Rapunzel 01:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

from VfD:

[edit] Dramatis personae of the Schlockiverse

WTF?

I didn't write that page (it's about [5] though) but it's better than separate entries on each character Schissel - bowl listen 05:53, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Character of what, exactly? There's no page for Schlockiverse. -- Curps 06:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Schlock Mercenary is the page you want. Schissel - bowl listen 06:35, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, see what happens when you don't link to or even mention any context whatsoever on the page in question. Somebody goes and lists it on VfD. -- Curps 06:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD cancelled. -- Curps 07:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Redirect

Can we please just redirect this back to Schlock Mercenary (which is long enough)? -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh, it can stay or go, as far as I'm concerned; it has a fair bit of fancruft in it. However, "long enough" is a good reason to keep this page, since it was split off from the main page at one point or another (as opposed to the Florence Ambrose page you redirected, which was simply an infodump from the forums that was never on the Freefall (webcomic) page to begin with). Nifboy 23:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Odd words in descriptions

The content for Sergeant Schlock contains the word "visophiliacally". Searching for this provides no help, as does a go with Google. This should either be removed, reworded, or given a definition -- Palfrey 16:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. My considerably freaky memory notes that I distinctly searched for and found a meaning when it was added. I'll see if I can do anything... --Kizor 14:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Nope. --Kizor 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TAG

Some of the character profiles need updating to bring them up to date. I've added a profile for TAG, the new ship AI as he's figured very prominently in the past "Glamour Assault Framed" storyarc. --Taospark 04:01, 09 August 2006 EST

[edit] Shiv'uu

I'm going to make the case that even if Shiv'uu was at one point a principle character, he isn't anymore, on account of being dead. Recommend he be demoted to a supporting character. Thoughts? Actions?--Cinder Lizard 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he was never a principal character in the first place. He just kind of drifted in when needed and drifted out again, and never really drove the plot. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The communications slug was barely above the emergency medical hologram. Let's give him his peace. --Kizor 23:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it's done. He's now a supporting character. Does anyone see any order to those lists that may have been disrupted?--Cinder Lizard 11:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start-Class to B-class

I would like to nominate this article for upgrading to B-Class
Vikedal 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --Kizor 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Just so you all know, i'm the one adding the images, so give me some time, and i'll have all of the characters and species Image'd.
Vikedal 20:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, though imaging everyone seems pretty excessive to me - the main characters and primary races, yes, but literally all of them would greatly clutter the article. A sapient elephant still looks like an elephant, too. But do as you wish, and we others will complain if we think you do it wrong. Such is the nature of Wikipedia. --Kizor 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh you make me feel so loved :P
Vikedal 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PFC 'Ken' Kennington

I just realized... there's no text under his name. Talk about a supporting Character.
Vikedal 06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corporal Vog

Should Corporal Vog (the Bradicor) be added as a supporting character? He turns up often enough- not enough to be a main character, but I think he deserves an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorkaisChosen (talk • contribs) 16:01, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Pin

Possible hoax, non notable. JoaoRicardo 05:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete without a solid reference, transwiki to Wiktionary if we do get one - David Gerard 15:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The term "Jesus Nut" is pretty well known aviation slang for the (possibly apocryphal, and I hope you appreciate the effort I put into figuring out how to spell that) big nut that holds the rotor onto a helicopter. Another kind of Jesus Nut hangs out in airport terminals. But I've never heard of a Jesus Pin. Google only comes up with lapel pins worn by the aforementioned Jesus Nuts. Given all this, it should hardly surprise anybody that I vote Delete --RoySmith 01:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two Finger Test

This I think is speedy material. Somebody delete it quick! --L33tminion | (talk) 06:19, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC) 06:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Oops, forgot to sign in... edited)

Note: I'm not the origional poster. This was unsigned.

[edit] Votes

  • I didn't start this VfD page, but it should be speedy deleted as patent nonsense. --Kelly Martin 06:18, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it's complete nonsense. I've made it less crapulent with a strategic "not", but it's still ripe for deletion. - Nunh-huh 06:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Technically, it isn't patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is random characters. This is just nonsense which should be deleted. PMC 06:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Patent nonsense can also mean "Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it." But this doesn't meet that definition, either.
  • Delete or maybe this is a candidate for BJAODN lol ÅrУnT†∈ 07:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Any lawyer or doctor can tell you that this is NOT a test approved by a court in a western country in recent memory. Any person with some sex education would know that this test would be of questionable scientific validity. All around this article reeks of misinformation and innaccuracy. Could be saved if the jurisdiction and/or era in which this was followed were cited --Rexrexilius 10:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this nonsense. Rje 19:31, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No verifiable source given for this (and none will be given because it is misinformation). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense, but not patent nonsense --Carnildo 01:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The test is used in courts to verify if a virgin or rape victim is telling the truth. It is the only way Doctors can tell.—the word hymen must mean nothing to whoever came up with this test. Delete and have a word with Supercool Dude's parents check the rest of the Dude's contributions carefully. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for the heck of it, I've done a Complete Rewrite of the article to discuss the various actual two-finger tests that there appear to be, retaining only the debunking of the original quackery. Weak Keep. Uncle G 05:48, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
    • Your complete rewrite was reverted by Supercool Dude to an abbreviated version of his original article. Does your weak keep still stand? -- Curps 02:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not particularly attached to the notion of there being a "Two Finger Test" article per se. The only real expansion potential that I see for this article is the inclusion of yet further tests that people have that involve the use of two fingers in some way. I haven't found one that is individually notable. Collectively, they aren't particularly notable, either, given their diversity and the tautology of what is common to all. It's a test, that involves the use of two fingers. Gosh. Uncle G 05:11, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone has googled for "two finger test" and linked all the results. Please redirect to Google. I mean: DELETE. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • At Dpb's request: a two finger test must be unreliable due to the size difference in fingers. A doctor with acromegaly would find the woman a virin, while his colleage with Marfan syndrome would find the opposite. Visual inspection of the introitus is probably much more informative, and requires no fingers. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of these is notable, and we don't even have articles for them. JoaoRicardo 05:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm guessing that someone has tidied the entry after most users here posted. However the article does require clean-up, a disambiguation header and Wikipedia articles for each of the tests described. Axl 11:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Seriously, are all (any?) of these "two finger tests" encyclopedic in their own right? They're just a grab-bag of Google results for the phrase. Even the "adolescent folklore" bit has no source for it... Supercool Dude is not an adolescent according to his user page, and "S.A. Suriano" may not even exist (see discussion below). Is there a need to keep even the modified article? -- Curps 17:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • No. It should not be kept. Uncle G who turned up all the other "two-finger tests" was making an interesting and valid point, but none of them is worthy of a whole article and collecting them into a list is no more encyclopedic than a list of rules of thumb would be. (I'm typing this in, don't know yet whether rules of thumb will turn out to be a redlink or not!) And you're right that the phrase "adolescent fantasy," which is my language, is just my surmise, I was trying to reword that paragraph to be less tendentious than Uncle G's original language, "What the Two Finger Test is not, is a test to see whether a woman is a virgin." Nobody has yet given any source other than Supercool Dude himself for the existence of any real or mythical "two finger test for virginity." As of now, it remains unsourced and unverifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supercool Dude's idiosyncratic definition and the existence of "S. A. Suriano M.D. Surgeon"

  • Back in the early 1990's I saw a woman (Kimberly Bergalis) who testified in a Florida Court of Law that she was still a Virgin and they proved to the Judge that she was not. I asked my Surgeon who was a Board Certified Urologist how they could tell!
    He told me of this TFT and said that a woman who has repeated Sexual Intercourse will become "loose" and stay that way.
    I asked my Sister an Brother In Law who are physicians and they said yes it is true! Are there any MD's here in Wikipedia?
    I stand for speaking the Truth! You guys are politically correct children!
    Supercool Dude 01:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No problem, then. Under "references," or on Talk:Two Finger Test, give the names and professional contact information of the doctors who told you this, so the information can be verified. "Dr. so-and-so, (year), thus-and-such clinic, city, state, personal communication." I'll call when I get a chance this week and if I can verify the information I'll change my vote to "keep." One of them can probably give me a relevant citation to whatever code specifies that this is the legal definition (in whatever state this applies to).
    • The information may be true, but we have to have a verifiable source for it. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Verifiable means that someone else can check it. It can't just be "I heard it from my brother-in-law." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The only listings Anywho has for "Suriano" in New York State are:
        Suriano Costantino P Attorney
        1 Battery Park Plaza
        New York, NY 10004

        Suriano Photo Studio
        3009 Stillwell Avenue
        Brooklyn, NY 11224

        Suriano R Home Improvements
        156 Barrett Street
        Schenectady, NY 1230

        Is "Suriano" the right spelling? What hospital, clinic, or office does he practice at? Can't tell from your user page what state you were in when you worked for him. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield, http://www.empireblue.com/member/universal/providerfind.shtml , "find a provider," has no listings for either "Siriano" or "Suriano." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Superpages, nationwide search, type in my personal physician's surname as keyword and it finds it. Suriano yields only two MD's
        • Suriano Catherine MD, 401 10th Street, Berthoud, CO 80513
        • Suriano Kimberly MD, 501 North Graham Street, Portland, OR 97227
      • Neither of these sounds like an "S. A. Suriano" Dpbsmith (talk) 02:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • There is an S. A. Suriano in this 1935 New York medical directory, apparently at that time an assistant in the urology department... that's doesn't sound right, either... Dpbsmith (talk) 02:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The story about Kimberly Bergalis is false, in any case. She was, as per my memory, but more importantly, as per the Washington Times (09/17/91), p. F2, a "nonhemophiliac virgin" who contracted AIDS from her Florida dentist Stewart Acer. It was the first case of such transmission, and her virginity was certainly not "disproved", no matter what one's brother-in-law says. - Nunh-huh 02:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S. A. Suriano M.D.

S.A Suriano M.D. is buried in Woodlawn Cemetery Bronx New York.

He was born in 1903 and died in 1997 of congestive Heart failure.

His office was at 1130 Pelham Parkway Bronx NY.

He became a doctor in 1927. He was a General Surgeon and Urologist.

Regarding verifying the Two Finger Test, If you know a doctor, why don't you ask him if its true.

This article was Medical Information, not nonsense.

Supercool Dude 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bimian Bangladesh

While Bimian Bangladesh might be notable, this page is a totally obvious advertisement. And I must say I love the image at the top. --Kelly Martin 06:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep this article on a notable airline, work on snipping out (and keeping out) advertising puff. -- Hoary 07:08, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • I wikified it. Now it's a long stub, rather than just a very ugly page. It could use cleanup, but keep, even if it was corporate vanity. Redirect. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement, copyright violation. Megan1967 01:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This article has been properly speedy deleted as a copyvio. Apart from this, the author couldn't spell as the correct name of the airline is Biman Bangladesh. As it happens, we already have a good article on this airline. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Y'know, any time Image:Example.jpg shows up, you can pretty much assume the article is speedy deletable as a user test. Surely I would shot first and answered questions later on this one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • What can I say, I'm a sucker for wikification. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I assume it was someone's idea of a joke to list this international long haul carrier for deletion. Redirect to the more usual spelling, Biman Bangladesh, though the "Bimian" spelling is also common. Listing Biman Bangladesh for deletion will be treated by this editor as attempted disruption. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. utcursch 08:14, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

[edit] Scottish rugby commentators and journalists

Too specific, POV, not encyclopedic. JoaoRicardo 06:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Easily encyclopedic, especially given Wikipedia is not paper. We have plenty of prominent sports commentators and journalists in Wikipedia, and leading personalities in Scottish rugby journalism should certainly meet Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Certainly an article briefly discussing them together in context is entirely Wikipedian. The wording "The undisputed King" sounds POV, but that's not reason for deletion. The awkward title is a reason to move, and the granularity a potential reason to merge, but where? Keep the information. Samaritan 06:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Keep as another "list of ...". Uncle G 15:01, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 15:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Too specific? That has got to be the dumbest deletion justification in history. This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be specific. Keep, but rename as List of Scottish rugby commentators and journalists.--Centauri 23:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, are rugby commentators and journalists really that notable? I don't think so. PS. I live in a rugby playing country too. Megan1967 01:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a resident of the same country, I consider that rugby commentators are significant enough especially as most become commentators after notable playing careers. Capitalistroadster 04:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:34, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I was going to add another rugby writer - David Ferguson the chief rugby writer of the Scotsman newspaper - when I discovered this vfd page. I suppose "undisputed King" is a POV, but if you ask any rugby fan old enough to remember his commentaries, Bill McLaren was second to none as a TV commentator on world rugby. He has now retired, so I suppose "formerly the King" might be more appropriate. If that is also too strong then how about "the most famous" or something like that? Anyway, I hope the page stays in some form or other. It was originally part of Scotland national rugby union team by the way, but I thought that was getting rather long and unweildy so I moved it. --Historian 03:03, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

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

The result of the debate was - kept

[edit] Jam 1575

This article has satisfied the criteria for undeletion. Undeletion policy requires that undeleted articles be re-listed on VfD.

Please review the article and process, and vote again. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

delete:

  1. It seems that this was the first example of an entirely unremarkable genre. The external link that I took led to a nightmare site of vanity URL, frames, Flash, etc., but here within all of that is the schedule. It seems to be your average muzak station: DJs play records and chat between them. Decades ago, in my undergraduate yoof at Essex University, we students interviewed guest lecturers and the like -- or at least those who we thought would say something interesting -- for University Radio Essex. (I interviewed Graham Greene's sinophile brother Felix Greene.) I don't say that the URE of the 70s was encyclopedia-worthy, but this seems much less so. If I've misunderstood, please amplify the article to describe significant ingredients. Till then, delete -- Hoary 07:01, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  2. Delete, possibly mention it in the Hull University article but not at length. --fvw* 18:10, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  3. Delete, not notable enough, Wikipedia is not advertising space. Megan1967 01:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

merge:

  1. Tentative merge into Hull University, but certainly don't delete the information. I don't want this to be read as precedent against campus radio station articles: a campus-originated radio station can have an extremely notable place in the broader community: see CKLN, WFMU. I'd lean to merging this instead, as it seems focused entirely on the university community. Per its advertising page, it covers "the Union shop, the Square, the Continental, laundry areas and over 3000 student homes every day." Samaritan 08:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Merge into Hull University, which has more than enough room for it, is relatively stubby and short on detail, and currently does not mention the station... and redirect. What is the Wikipedian fetish for tiny breakout articles? Isn't anyone interested in this station certain to know that it's part of Hull University and likely to look for it there? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

keep:

  1. Keep - if someone bothers to write an article about a radiostation then it must be notable. Grue 13:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Possibly, but do you also think that if someone bothers to write an article about anything it must be notable? (That too makes sense in a certain way.) Or if radio stations are unusually special, how is this? -- Hoary 14:36, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
      • 1. AFAIK, you must get a license from local authority to start broadcasting, so this makes radio stations special. Student radio stations are more special because they don't get paid for it. 2. I wrote an article on semi-notable radio station myself and I don't want it deleted. 3. I vote keep on almost everything that may have a remote chance to be interesting to someone. Grue 17:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That's bad reasoning. If someone writes an article about a broadcasting station, or a small pop group or band, it's sometimes the case that it is one of the persons involved themselves writing it, with the intention of getting it listed on Wikipedia and its mirrors, and thereby increasing its Google page rank and the attention of its Google-cruising audience. Wikipedia is a convenient means for people to get around the fact that Google charges a fee for the placement of advertisements. Uncle G 17:17, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
      • I'm confident there's no other radio station named "Jam 1575", and I'd dare guess there's no other radio station serving Hull University, in the world. The idea this is linkspam, or para-commercial advertising for a non-profit, volunteer-run community radio station, doesn't fit this case at all. Samaritan 06:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I was responding to the reasoning that Grue actually wrote ("if someone bothers to write an article about a radiostation then it must be notable"). Uncle G 07:18, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  2. Keep. Most radio stations are notable and this is no exception. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Why, exactly, should it have its own article rather than being part of the Hull University article? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

comment:

  • Actual radio stations, IME, are notable. For instance, being a college radio veteran myself, I'm personally very interested to know more about stations outside of North America, which is exactly where this station fits in the grand scheme of things. If this isn't notable, I don't see how any university radio station could ever qualify. To me, it's a keeper. Bearcat 07:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I disagree completely. To me, it's very easy to imagine that some university radio stations are significant and others aren't. Indeed, I've read about some that I'd certainly say are significant. This one too may be significant, but I haven't seen any reasoning for this, other than that it was the first of a certain kind of radio station in Britain. For one thing, I'd like to know if it has any programs to which a moderate number of students listen. I spent some time at a British university recently -- I'll kindly forgo naming it, but it wasn't Hull -- and after some time was surprised to see an ad for the campus radio station. The people I asked seemed hardly aware that it existed. It seemed to be a low-budget imitation of commercial pop music radio, minus the commercials -- a respectable enough hobby for a few who were involved in making it, but of little significance to anyone else. (People had regular radio, web radio, CDs, etc., playing in the background.) Maybe Jam 1575 is entirely different. I'd be happy to hear about the differences, and would consider changing my vote. -- Hoary 07:33, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
      • Agreed, not all radio stations are notable. There are many stations that get licences and most are not notable. This is a university radio station - its not notable enough to have its own article. Megan1967 01:52, 17 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] VFD

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was KEEP

from VfD:

[edit] The Thousand Yahren War

Article starts:

The Thousand Yahren War (aka The Thousand Year War and The Great Cylon Conflict) was a fictitious intergalactic war set before the events in the original 1978 movie Battlestar Galactica.

It appears to be specific to this movie (actually a TV movie, scoring 5.8 out of 10 at IMDb, and of which the representative "user comment" starts "Not as bad as its reputation"). But it's not even in the movie (or so I read); it's just a plot device. Fancruft. -- Hoary 06:36, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Disagree--Maybe I should mention just the events that led to the movie, not the events in the movie itself. The war is the premise behind the movie anyway. Hiphats 06:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparently also a 70s TV show and 2003 remake. Cylon (Battlestar Galactica), The Destruction of the Twelve Colonies, and Gaius Baltar all link to it. Let is stay. dbenbenn | talk 06:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since Wikipedia allows a large amount of articles related to Star Trek (I should know) as well as Doctor Who and other franchises, I think this is worthwhile keeping as a major component of BSG. The new series is generating a lot of interest in the old series, so there is some added notability there, too. But this does need some expanding. 23skidoo 07:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The page is just as valid as the Battlestar Galactica article itself. -- Judson 09:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It hurts to say this, but keep. If the pain is too much, merge and keep as a redirect - David Gerard 16:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. --Centauri 23:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Keep" would be most consistent with the precedents we have established towards this type of trivia, which is that the threshold that must be satisfied by any popular culture topic is extremely low. However, I can't bring myself to vote for keeping it. --BM 00:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, precedent already set with Star Trek and other televsion and film show episodes. Article appears to have had a lot of work put into it. The Thousand Yahren War was a major early incident in BG itself. Megan1967 01:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The Thousand Yahren War was the name of the conflict between human beings and an army of evil cyborgs intent upon flooding Wikipedia with subtrivial fancruft. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep given precedents. --JuntungWu 17:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep considering the notoriety of Battlestar Galactica and the importance of this war in the Galactica universe. -- ckape (talk) 03:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Notoriety"? For what? I haven't seen it, so don't know; but to me its IMDb rating of 5.8 suggests utter mediocrity rather than notoriety. -- Hoary 04:05, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • From my understanding it's one of the best known science fiction shows from that era, although it lags behind Star Trek and Dr. Who. -- ckape (talk) 05:09, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

end moved discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 22:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pist

Delete, Probably vanity & non-notable. Pist + "destroy society" = 178 hits on google. Pist + "ideas are bulletproof" = 318 141.151.160.53 10:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • 141.151.160.53, for your information, normally many here on Wikipedia use the criteria on WP:MUSIC to judge a bands notability, not Google hits. Zzyzx11 | Talk 10:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Talk:The Pist appears to indicate that this article survived VFD back in January since it contains that previous VFD discussion. Zzyzx11 | Talk 10:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the only portion of the WP:MUSIC criteria that this band seem to meet is having toured the U.S. which is really not a big or unusual accomplishment for a punk band. 141.151.160.53 10:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether that's big or unusual, the music notability guidelines say they only have to meet ONE criterion on the list. —Wahoofive | Talk 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, tours and album will do for me. Kappa 00:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, All Music Guide lists them with the album and it seems from googling that they were reasonably influential in the Connecticut/New York punk scene in the 1990s. Meet Wikimusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pretty well known punk band. I think the noise band I was in in college opened for them once, if memory serves. Article needs work, though. -R. fiend 15:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (again). Grue 18:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough for me. --Myles Long 15:48, 22 Apr 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 - found to be a copyvio

[edit] Anna Lee Fisher

Someone's résumé. JoaoRicardo 06:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I confess I hadn't read the thing. Can a proponent take a page out of VfD? JoaoRicardo 01:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if we read it we find that she was an astronaut on the second flight of the Space Shuttle Discovery. Needs editing, not deletion. - Nunh-huh 07:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Put this on Cleanup, not VFD. PMC 07:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I'll wikify it sometime in the next three weeks (astronauts are my thing) ÅrУnT†∈ 08:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cleanup if you must, it's already listed there in fact, but personally I think the above commitment is a better bet than cleanup. Andrewa 11:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously - David Gerard 15:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and check for Copyvio. Someone has been adding the curricula vitae of NASA people to Wikipedia. These appear to be scraped from NASA's web site, where the copyright status is not explicit. I listed Adriana ocampo at Copyright Problems five days ago. Anna Lee Fisher should probably be listed too, until the copyright status of the biographies of NASA personnel is sorted out. Uncle G 17:13, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • If and when that copyright violation is sorted out... When someone can rewrite that article I will then vote Keep, astronauts are notable in my book. Megan1967 01:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Modified as above, article needs rewrite and expansion. Original was public domain. Megan1967 01:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site's FAQ sends you to the generic NASA disclaimer (Please mention NASA as the source) so I think we have no problem saying that these are US Gov public domain. Rmhermen 04:35, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • See the discussion at Copyright Problems. (The Wikipedia problems earlier today seem to have royally screwed up the submissions to this page. I've restored the Anna Lee Fisher entry that was there.) Uncle G 06:32, 2005 Jan 16 (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] Spiffy Hamster

Spiffy Hamster is one of the worlds most renound internet spammers. . . . Sorry, Hammo, you can't spam your way into significance (unless your name is John P Ennis). -- Hoary 07:37, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "spammers" (which in this particular instance seems to mean "trollers") are inherently non-notable unless they truly make headlines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic vanity. Rje 19:19, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Infrogmation 23:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is that you, Gordon?

[edit] Reza Sharifi

A politically active PhD student. Doesn't seem notable. -- Hoary 09:04, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • A politically active student in Iran, where students are said to be an important political force. Can anyone verify this instance? Gazpacho 10:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as probable vanity, and as non-notable. Difficult to Google due to others with similar names, but doesn't seem well-known by any stretch of the imagination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless notability is established (my own Google check failed to do so), Delete. Khanartist 01:23, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Tough call. Google test useless here. Can someone who knows Iran weigh in on weigh in on whether this looks like vanity or someone notable? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:37, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Cuddy

"Mastermind" (really!) of a kidnap. Not of anybody you've probably heard of, just some rich guy's daughter. He got the money, but six days later was arrested thanks to making a down-payment on a Ferrari in cash. NB this was in 1990s USA, not 1980s Saudi Arabia, so he does sound remarkably stupid to me -- but does either kidnapping or (Archimedes Plutonium aside) exceptional stupidity win you an encyclopedia entry?

Note that the poppet he kidnapped also gets her Wikipedia entry on the strength of having been kidnapped. -- Hoary 10:54, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Not verifiable - delete. Keep if a solid reference can be found - David Gerard 15:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He got the article apparently as a bud off Ocean's Eleven (which made an oblique passing reference to him). Since that's the only sense in which he's notable, let the information remain there. dbenbenn | talk 18:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Utterly verifiable, but not particularly interesting, except perhaps as a small mention in the Steve Wynn article. Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 - should be merged

[edit] Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Not noteworthy enough to have its own article. Maybe not noteworthy enough to be anywhere in an article, above plain mentioning as "External link". --Pjacobi 12:47, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Rant? Vanity? Original Research? Maybe all of the above. In any case, Delete --RoySmith 14:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless the reference (New Scientist) turns out to be bogus. Needs a better title though - David Gerard 15:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Big Bang wherever the discussion of Big Bang criticisms is today ☺ with no Redirect (Uncle G 21:11, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)):
    1. Many people have written open letters to the scientific community over the years, on a variety of subjects. Until we have an article that discusses open letters to the scientific community, this article should remain an empty space. This particular open letter is no more deserving of special mention under that title than any of the many others.
    2. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Big Bang Critiques.
  • This should NOT be merged with the Big Bang article. It is not part of the Big Bang. Joshuaschroeder 21:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • A criticism of the Big Bang theory doesn't belong in the Weaknesses and criticisms of the Big Bang theory section of Big Bang? What reason do you have for asserting that? Uncle G 00:05, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
      • Here's one: the section no longer exists. Joshuaschroeder 01:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • It existed at the time that you wrote your assertion and I wrote my response, as you well know. Uncle G 04:34, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Merge with Big Bang without redirect. Martg76 23:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, borderline POV pushing. Khanartist 01:22, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Merge with non-standard cosmology. I have just finished cleaning up the Big Bang page. I am of the opinion now that this article should probably be merged back into its old resting place which was non-standard cosmology. Not that I'm too fond of that article either, but this thing definitely doesn't belong on the Big Bang page. The Big Bang is a scientific paradigm and discussion about its inadequacies or its triumphs are simply the purview of the scientific endeavor and scientific community in general. It says nothing about the content of the Big Bang. Joshuaschroeder 01:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Big Bang Non-standard cosmology, without redirect. A subheading is definitely necessary in order to point out this is not mainstream Big Bang viewpoints. Megan1967 01:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Modified as above, good call Joshua. Megan1967 01:55, 16 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] Hidden Enemy

Another one-line non-wikified all-capitalized-title dicdef for a non-existent term from User:Supercool Dude (who also created Two Finger Test and The Creeping Crud and False Friends, Meaning). Really ought to be speedied if he keeps doing this. -- Curps 13:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --RoySmith 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless slangdef. Rje 19:16, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no value --Woodstone 19:19, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, totally meaningless. Deb 21:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rubbish definition. It's two words, for starters. Uncle G 03:52, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

[edit] Chulukua-Ryu

See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Harley_"SwiftDeer"_Reagan. Uncle G 14:31, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 01:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 19:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 1 delete, 2 redirect. The information is already at Eskrima, so merging isn't relevant.

[edit] Rattan (weapon), also Rattan sticks, Rattan stick, Arnis stick, & Arnis sticks

These are the only other contributions from 172.151.88.226, who gave us Chulukua-Ryu and Harley "SwiftDeer" Reagan. A "rattan weapon" is a known fighting implement. However it, at least as employed by the Society for Creative Anachronism and others, appears to be merely a weapon made of rattan. Are you as surprised by that as I am? Uncle G 14:50, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Delete, unnecessary duplications/forks, dictionary definitions. Megan1967 01:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to Eskrima. -Sean Curtin 07:27, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and rediret to one of these names, or to somewhere appropriate. There is potential for an article here about the quasi-sport that has developed of fighting with rattan sticks and full armor. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:40, Jan 17, 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.

[edit] Criticism of Linux

A rewrite of the "Netcraft confirms - BSD is dying" troll from Slashdot, by User:Willy on Wheels!. Linux desperately needs a 'criticisms' section, but this isn't it and it would be inline in the first instance, not a separate article (was put inline by the troll first time around) - David Gerard 14:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me add, by the way, that I run FreeBSD at home and really despise administering the crack-addled monstrosity that is the Linux kernel ;-) = David Gerard 22:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah the usual tactics of a Linux zealot. Claims I am banned user (I never heard of this Willy on Wheels idiot), had to get a new IP address because he banned me. This guy is a Linux zealot and has repeately reverted attempts at Wikipecia documenting the truth about Linux and calls the documenters trolls. Troll is a term used by Linux zealots to discredit their opponents. If this article gets deleted it will be proof that Wikipedia is a fapping ground for Linux zealots and Slashdot nerds. I hope that some normal users (what Linux users call trolls) have the sense to see that this "vote" is a fraud and seak action against linux zealots who deliberatley warp the truth about their operating system! This article is based on my critical post made on Slashdot, of which was moderated down by linux zealots! --69.44.58.97 15:47 UTC, 15 Jan 2005
  • Delete. There's a way to criticise, and this isn't it. --BesigedB (talk) 16:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If anyone's going to criticise anything it shouldn't be done in the wikipedia. 68.50.119.229 17:53 UTC, 15 Jan 2005
  • Delete, of course. I've been seeing this one on Slashdot for months - as David says, it's the "BSD is dying" rewritten. What's next, a "Linux is Communism" article? Dehumanizer 18:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just MOVE it (copy paste) to the discussion page for /linux, easy solution, no complaints. 195.64.95.116 18:13 UTC, 15 Jan 2005
  • Delete. Single items of fact correct or not, not liking the way some things are handled on the linux platform as compared to on the *BSD platform is an oppinion not a fact. The conclusions made that linux is dying is also not much more than a rant. Being moderated down at slashdot does not make the wikipedia the right place for it. -- 193.11.212.19 19:41 UTC, 15 Jan 2005
  • Delete POV essay. Gazpacho 21:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As un-encyclopedic and irrevocably POV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:50, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete'. Articles should provide information and not editorialise. --Alexs letterbox 23:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto on the "there's a way to document criticisms and this isn't it" sentiment. --BM 00:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is not encyclopedic and is just POV. evolve 01:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not being a Linux zealot, I still say: delete. --Plek 18:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, essay. silsor 23:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a long time Linux user and developer I feel it is important that our weaknesses as well as our strengths are well documented. --Tom K. 8:47 Jan 16 2005
    • "Linux sucks, dammit" is not the way to document weaknesses. Or would you think the "Netcraft confirms - BSD is dying" is a valid criticism of Free/Open/NetBSD? This article, much like that one, is, and always has been, a troll. Dehumanizer 08:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: I think that a section in Linux about criticism of Linux is a good idea (not a full article - Microsoft Windows doesn't have one, and it certainly deserves it much more), but with valid, non-POV criticism, not something like this drivel. Dehumanizer 12:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV advocacy - Skysmith 11:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - all the above reasons (thanks for spamvertising this article on /. BTW) — PhilHibbs | talk 11:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ru-board

Spam. Smoddy | Talk 16:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • speedy delete: one external link, meets the criteria for speedy delete. Edward 16:54, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • speedy Glaurung 16:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I speedy deleted this as spam. The entire contents apart from delete notices are below.-gadfium 19:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Great russian website: forum.ru-board.com

from VfD:

[edit] Axeman

Slangdef, and a rather non-notable one at that. --fvw* 18:01, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Delete - David Gerard 20:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I've never heard of either usage. --InShaneee 20:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - If I get a vote? I have never heard the term either. --myork 20:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep:A rather poor stub agreed, but there is a Wikipedia request for this page here. [6] A common word in Europe for some-one with a problem, and there are far worse stubs about. Who knows a beautiful swan may arise. Giano 20:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Then I fear there's been a mistake in compiling the list of enclopaedia topics, or at the least this wasn't what the entry in that list was referring to. What's more, I've never heard the term, and I live in europe last time I checked, so it can't be that common. --fvw* 03:33, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete: On reflection looking at the links provided there probably is an article here, but in its present form, it is probably some-one having a laugh, so unless it is re-written fairly quickly delete Giano 13:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, I'm sure Giano intends to nurture the duckling into a swan.--Bishonen | Talk 21:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • I aint nurturing nothing, but google results in 88,900 for the term, as defined in the article.Giano 21:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • 87,000 of those are messageboard nicks and the rest musicians. I admit this one might have relevance: "'Harry, darling, the axeman's here,' she chortled, shaking her husband violently and quite possibly injuring his genitalia."--Bishonen | Talk 23:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am thinking the links I have ordered have solved this question. Calcagno 23:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary. RickK 00:24, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable slang (when you filter Google results). Megan1967 02:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not noteworthy. --Spangineer ∞ 02:45, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • "In rare instances it refers to a man using an axe in a perfectly legitimate fashion, but this is unusual." Utter rubbish. This is a very common occurrence in literature. Compare "headsman", for starters. The dictionary definition is the usual definition. Try reading less Google and reading more books. Delete. It's already in Wiktionary. Uncle G 02:51, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Delete, impressed by "utter rubbish" argument.--Bishonen | Talk 14:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed the silly neologism and turned it into a disambiguation page. -Sean Curtin 07:39, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not really sure we need a dab page for this, but what the hell, Keep. --fvw* 07:41, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And Wiktionary already has an article (although it could use the slang definition). —Simetrical (talk) 22:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Clayton Marcuson

This has all the markings of a vanity page. I couldn't find anything about this Clayton Marcuson (except maybe this resumé), which is pretty odd for someone who in the 90s "became a leader in the nation for his work with computers and multimedia". -Rholton 03:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like vanity Cdc 01:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oddly arrogant vanity. Delete. Khanartist 01:19, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete; not much on google [7]. --Spangineer ∞ 02:52, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ClassassignmentforGov337atBerryCollegeinRomeGeorgia

Not encyclopedic / POV / etc., but doesn't meet speedy requirements. --Goobergunch|? 20:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • If any of it is worth merging with Labour Party (UK), merge. Move to a better title first (perhaps History of the British Labour Party?) and delete this page title, which is useless. If nothing is merge-worthy, then delete. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with proper article and delete this rotten title - David Gerard 20:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not worth merging as this article is stuffed full of inaccuracies and very superficial. I'd almost like to go in and correct it but that feels too much like doing someone else's homework for them. Just delete it. Dbiv 21:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge. The Labour Party article is better in every respect. Gazpacho 21:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a repository for term papers. 23skidoo 23:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing worth merging here. Megan1967 02:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just Delete, not worthwhile. --Spangineer ∞ 02:55, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Essay under a nonsense name. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A schoolkid has posted his/her homework. Axl 12:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiFan04 02:42, 20 Jan 2005 (CST)

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

[edit] Postwhore

Article obviously created as vanity/insult. Not sure if it's common enough of a term to bother rewriting for wiktionary. --InShaneee 20:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Not a term I'm familiar with, but it gets 21,200 Google hits. Clean and Transwiki I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a term widely used for people who post either too much on a board, or post too much nonsense just to get their post count up. It's notable, but I'm not sure if it's something Wikipedia needs to document. It's definitely an Internet phenomena, but without checking, I'm sure we got plenty of those covered. Inter 21:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard the term several times over the last few months at a variety of message boards. Seems to be gaining ground as a popular term. Khanartist 01:18, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Common term, but one for wiktionary. Transwiki - David Gerard 14:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary and/or merge and redirect to some appropriate article on message board slang. Psychonaut 18:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary and/or merge and redirect to some appropriate article on message board slang. I just gave it a complete rewrite. --SPUI 06:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur Kappa 11:21, 18 Jan 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.

[edit] Bodhi Tah Gorean Party

Saw this in an edit to List of political parties in the United States. Single-sentence substub giving almost no information: have they run any candidates for public office? How would Gorean ideas be applied to politics—is this a party that seriously advocates enslaving women? Googling for "Bodhi Tah Gorean" brings up a single hit: a post on a Gorean ezBoard forum referring to a user called Bodhi Tah. — Gwalla | Talk 22:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Dubious or unverifiable. Delete -- Infrogmation 22:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Also non-notable if not an outright hoax. Delete. Fire Star 00:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to look after rabbits

The article How to look after rabbits is original research, anonymously submitted without sources, and likely a primary-school essay. Additionally, the subject is already adequately covered in a subsection in the rabbit article. This article should be deleted. -- Cleduc 22:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Infrogmation 22:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Gazpacho 22:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree - this is already covered in the main article, so we don't need this as a separate one. Thanks to the original contributor, though. (yes, delete) DS 23:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article duplication, original research. Megan1967 02:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with rabbit, of course. (There's little, if anything, to merge, though.) This isn't original research. This is pretty basic stuff that pretty much every rabbit owner, and indeed pretty much every household pet owner, learns. "Make sure your rabbit likes it's food or other wise it won't eat it and it will starve." That's "original research" by your standards? Really? Uncle G 04:31, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
    • "Original research" is as close as I could come to describing what this article is for purposes of VFD. Yes, really. -- Cleduc 20:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not original research, but not encyclopedic either. Wikipedia isn't a repository for how-tos and instructions. Transwiki to WikiBooks is probably in order. — Gwalla | Talk 05:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is already a Wikibook on dog care, so this could be transwikied there. I'm not sure it would be useful, since it's so crappy, so weak delete. Tuf-Kat 08:57, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems common sense based, Delete. - Greaser 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ah, bless! I can just imagine an eight-year-old girl diligently typing this after receiving her beloved pet at Christmas. Axl 12:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-created god

It seems impossible to write an encyclopedic article under this lemma. If something general is to be said on this issue, it should be said in God. Specifics to some religion or myth can be put into the article on this religion or myth. --Pjacobi 22:58, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with Pjacobi. Fire Star 00:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 02:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it seems more of a remark than an article on its own. - Greaser 02:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-created

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Self-created god. Not a suitable title an encyclopdic article can be put at. --Pjacobi 23:00, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with Pjacobi. Fire Star 00:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Khym Chanur 07:35, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, virtually a carbon-replica of another article which also should be deleted. - Greaser 03:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris flook

non notable, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flook --Melaen 23:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 23:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cdc 01:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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 WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

from VfD:

[edit] Aeschbacher, Carl (Äschbacher)

No Google hits, no indication of what this person did, looks like a page test. JoaoRicardo 23:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • No vote. The article was listed here 14 minutes after its creation. Anyway, he was an obscure Swiss composer, and he does have a few Google hits. A newby (80.126.229.68) is trying to write articles about the whole Aeschbacher clan. Lupo 23:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just barely notable. If it is not expanded, should probably be merged into a Aesbacher family article. Khanartist 01:15, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Keep let's at least give this one a chance. Composers are often interesting and very often encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, borderline notable, not much in this article. Megan1967 02:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep and don't bite the n00bs. —RaD Man (talk) 04:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate stub. Somebody already moved it to a better title. — Gwalla | Talk 05:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published composers are notable.--Centauri 06:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 14:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Bitchnatch

According the article, an obscure neologism. Six hits on Google.

  • Delete. Neologism, nonsense. RickK 00:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, and not a useful one at that. Khanartist 01:15, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, worthless. --Spangineer ∞ 03:09, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ok delete.
  • Delete blah blah, see aboveTuf-Kat 08:55, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obscure neologism indeed. WikiFan04 14:45, 20 Jan 2005 (CST)

[edit] Defastenism

PLEASE NOTE: WHOEVER NOMINATED THIS ARTICLE FOR DELETION DID NOT PUT A TEMPLATE ON THE ARTICLE ABOUT IT!

Tyrenius 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

New art movement only a couple of years old. 44 hits on google some of which are blog entries. Doesn't seem quite notable as of yet. --LeeHunter 00:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. We need to create a new abbreviation - I hereby propose that "nn" stand for "not notable". Think of the hours that could be saved by VfD wikipedians everywhere. --Spangineer ∞ 03:05, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please don't encourage obscure abreviations, think of the children new contributors. Kappa 06:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, an art movement with a presence in at least three different countries sounds notable to me.Bjones 18:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Google is not the final arbiter, and art has to have different criteria to pop stars. The crux is - will people wish to find out about this movement and access Wiki to do so. They have certainly been covered by the Irish press and elsewhere, so have a public presence, which will generate further enquiry. It doesn't matter how old they are - it matters how much interest there is in them. Media coverage is also a valid criterion. I am not affiliated to Defastenism, but have found it of sufficiently note to research and contribute to the article. P.S. ""They're the most vital thing that's happened in contemporary art in Dublin in a while." - The Dubliner, May 2005. Tyrenius 02:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosetta bot

Dic def neologism that hasn't gained any traction--displayed hits are limited to 3 websites. Niteowlneils 01:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If Wired writes a feature on this six months from now, I may feel foolish. non-notable as of now. Khanartist 01:29, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion, borderline. Megan1967 02:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing of note - if Wired writes something about it in six months, the article can be recreated. --Spangineer ∞ 02:57, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete VERY interesting concept, but seems to be a neologism at the moment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhymezone

No one else has edited this page besides me and I'm not sure why it was on the requested articles list in the first place. As it is now its just an ad and I see know reason for its continued existence. freestylefrappe 04:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - David Gerard 14:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 01:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)