Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 3 January 5 >

Contents

[edit] January 4

[edit] Lighthouse Island, New York

This page describes a small pile of rocks with a navigation light on it. The rock pile has no interesting properties; it is unremarkable in all respects. It is certainly no more interesting than any of thousands of other such anonymous piles of rocks with lights on them. I've been sailing in the waters around it for 20 years and I've never heard anybody refer to it as "Lighthouse Island". This article has no potential to become encyclopedic. I don't think I would go so far as to call it vandalism, but it certainly is pointless trivia. --RoySmith 02:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is a sub-sub-stub if ever there was one. I can't even think of a page where this can be merged. 23skidoo 06:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • When someone writes an article on New York waterways, merge it into that. Until then, keep. All geographic trivia is notable and encyclopedic. History teaches us that today's "trivia" is tomorrow's priceless data.--Centauri 08:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: At this point, we're looking at nothing at all here. There is no article. There are many islands off the main islands of NYC, many more off the coast of NY State. Even Rambot manages to say something about its towns. Geogre 14:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hart Island, New York. Gazpacho 23:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here worthwhile to keep. Centauri please see Section 7 of what Wikipedia is not. "Wikipedia is not a general database". Megan1967 00:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if piles of rocks can be interesting. Wyss 03:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. RickK 06:19, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no opinion on whether to redirect. --fvw* 17:27, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 21:22, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; as above. Newfoundglory 00:31, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and no need to redirect. The name does not appear in the USGS and they generally do have the names of the most incredibly obscure piles of rocks. older≠wiser 04:03, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia contains many obscure places. --L33tminion | (talk) 04:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed vote to delete following discussion with RoySmith. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:05, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Roy, is this perhaps referring to Stepping Stones Light? Gazpacho 06:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not. See Talk:Lighthouse_Island,_New_York for more info RoySmith 15:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Greaser 06:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Decumanus 01:09, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

interwiki bot please !

interwiki xx:xxxxx

interwiki bot please !


[edit] Inconsistency

Oleg Alexandrov, says he “removed the technical analysis part, that should be in a dictionary,”

Maybe so, but how is this any different than the definition that Oleg left in about Statistics?

It looks inconsistent to me to pull out one and leave the other.

  • In Statistics, a trend is a long-term movement in time series data after other components have been accounted for;
  • In technical analysis the existing general direction of movement of energy expressed as the relationship between prices. "The trend is your friend!” Dr George Lane

Trends are at the very core of technical analysis. GT

[edit] from VfD:

There is probably a decent encyclopaedic article to be written on trends. This isn't it, nor is it a beginning for it. --fvw* 02:20, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Comment: I agree that there is probably something to be said on trend. I stubbed a piece on statistical trends. Is this useful or would a direct link to trend estimation make more sense? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, stick an attention tag on it and you have my keep vote. --fvw* 03:15, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 00:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it'll grow. Wyss 03:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a stub doesn't make a delete. Andrew pmk 23:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Absent further objections or votes other than keep, I propose to delist this article tomorrow, 6 January. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yep... Wyss 05:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Quotes

Should the second quote, made by the same person who made the third quote, be separately attributed to the quoter?

Nice job, thanks!! GT

[edit] A bug in "what links here"?

The links (for example from bear market) don't appear. --Pgreenfinch 10:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Both bull market and bear market work ok for me. GT

[edit] displaying trends

Nothing has been noted about conventions for displaying trends. Is the data displayed left to right (as in earliest to current as numerical hard data, or as a graphical display. 66.193.169.195 13:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Dave Dayton

[edit] According to Life

ad for weblog DCEdwards1966 02:24, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Ad, possible linkspam. --Wikimol 07:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Advertising, and Wikipedia is not a blog register. Geogre 14:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad, WP not a webguide. Wyss 03:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad, remove. Andrew pmk 23:29, 9 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 - redirected

[edit] Evolution and creationism

The Evolution and creationism page has served its time and its function has been replaced by the Creation vs. evolution debate page and the associated pages to which the Creation vs. evolution debate page links. The material on the Evolution and creationism page has already been merged into the Creation vs. evolution debate page. Accordingly, the Evolution and creationism page should be deleted and made into a #REDIRECT to the Creation vs. evolution debate page. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. Gazpacho 06:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (and redirect). Philip J. Rayment 14:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Why does it need to be deleted first? Can't it just be turned into a redirect?--G Rutter 16:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps. But I would prefer that the various parties get a chance to consider and discuss whether the Wikipedia discussion should appear under the title Creation vs. evolution debate or under the title Evolution and creationism. It seems to me that the discussion can be clearer if considered in the light of deleting the identity of one. This is a time for everyone to consider whether "Evolution and creationism" is a POV to be preserved separate from "Creation vs. evolution debate." ---Rednblu | Talk 17:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • We don't keep POVs separate, just topics. These look like identical topics to me. — Ливай | ☺ 18:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Haven't we many times kept POVs on separate pages? --mainly for the reader's convenience. I refer you to keeping the Lagrangian POV on a page separate from the Hamiltonian POV. Different POVs can be compatible and convertible, can they not? The question I think would be: Does putting the different POVs on separate pages make it easier for the reader to understand the overall picture in which the different POVs are only parts of the picture. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes if material has been merged "delete and redirect" is a violation of the GPL. Kappa 16:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • By my understanding, GPL requires access only to the "source code" of the final released version but does not require access to the prior versions of "source code" used in development of the final released version. How is "delete and redirect" a violation of GPL? ---Rednblu | Talk 17:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • GFDL, not GPL! The GFDL requires that attribution for an article is preserved, so if user X copies user Y's contributions wholesale from article A to article B, then deletes article A, attribution to user Y is lost, which is in violation of the license. I believe admins can fix this by fiddling around with edit histories, but being nontrivial, it should generally be avoided. Merge and delete just isn't an option. (Unless user Y is someone like me, who has multi-licensed his or her contributions into the public domain.) JRM 20:52, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
        • If you do a compare, you will see that there are no exact quotes remaining--except for the one reference from Evolution and creationism which has been unchanged in the edit and re-edit fury 8)) on the Creation vs. evolution debate page of the last months, so there is no GFDL problem with "delete and redirect" either--no more than there would be with a paraphrase of an uncited scholar. However, all the points in the Evolution and creationism article are covered in the Creation vs. evolution debate page. This discussion is an example of why I wanted to submit this page to VfD--so that we could discuss all the issues, thank you. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, naturally. — Ливай | ☺ 18:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Be bold and redirect. No need to delete first (and some good reasons not to - many take a stricter read of the GFDL attribution requirements than Rednblu proposes). Rossami (talk) 00:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a dodgy PoV fork, then Rename the whole mess as Dr Zen suggests below and Redirect this to it. Giving the religious, untestable PoV of creationism "equal" balance with evolution in the main article title is unencyclopedic and misleading in the extreme. Wyss 02:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move the contents of the other article and rename the whole nonsense Science and creationism. Redirect this to it. Evolution is an observable fact, by the way, and even God believes the theory of evolution by natural selection is substantially correct.Dr Zen 03:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Zen, having an article is not an endorsement of views. Gazpacho
    You're absolutely right but a title can be POV, don't you think? Compare America's crusade against Islam with Views on America's war on Iraq, for example. I merely suggest avoiding the former sort.Dr Zen 04:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Contrasting creationism and science, as per your suggested title, is POV. Philip J. Rayment 14:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Erm. Only if science in fact includes creationism, which it doesn't. Because science is an enterprise, not an object, it gets to decide what is or isn't part of it. In the same way, Jacques Chirac could dispute whether he is an American citizen, but the USA actually gets to decide.Dr Zen 05:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. If C vs. E is the "successor" of this article then its history is part of that article's editing record. Gazpacho 03:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Same reasons as Gazpacho's. PMLF 05:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Rdirect The question should be how near one could get to NPOV with an article named as above; 'debate' relates this conflict quite well Lectonar 08:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect , obviously. Carioca 00:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me think through this. Let's see if I have correctly summarized the community consensus here.  :)

Summary of opinion

  1. In this case SourcePage = [ Evolution and creationism ] and TargetPage = [ Creation vs. evolution debate ].
  2. Where the substantive points of SourcePage have been paraphrased on TargetPage such that there remain on TargetPage no direct quotations of SourcePage, still the contributor edit history of SourcePage should be preserved by a "Merge and redirect" rather than a "Delete and redirect."
  3. The "Merge and redirect" shall be accomplished by the following. After the substantive points of SourcePage have been at least paraphrased on TargetPage:
    1. Replace all of the text of SourcePage with the #REDIRECT [[TargetPage]] line, and
    2. Put in the "Edit summary" a statement like the following: "Replacing text with a #REDIRECT where the substantive points of this page have been at least paraphrased on [[TargetPage]].

Does that accurately reflect the comments here? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:47, 5 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.

Norway Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

from VfD:

I thought the suicidal lemming myth had been pretty much debunked by now, and without that there's not much of an article. --fvw* 00:26, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

    • Comment: That is good reason for a rewrite, not deletion. This is a well-known myth, and it needs to be covered, not ignored. -- 05:04, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC) [claiming attrib of my comment -- obviously i made the dreaded 5-tilde typo!--Jerzy(t) 17:39, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)]
  • Keep. It has indeed been debunked, e.g., for 18 months in our article Lemming; this article satisfies a former red link there, and should have its text replaced by the Norway Lemming 'graphs of the Lemming article, which should have (instead of the moved material) a 1- or 2-sentence summary linking to Norway Lemming. More text, e.g., distribution, unique morphology, etc. can of course be added. --Jerzy(t) 05:04, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Keep, just needs a re-write, not deleting. Dan100 17:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Dan100. GRider\talk 19:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD is not Cleanup. Bryan 01:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, yep, VfD is not cleanup. Wyss 02:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- As it stands , the current article is misinformation. If someone wants to create an article there later that is fine. DCEdwards1966 21:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Bad content is a basis for deletion when there is no real hope of an adequate rewrite; in this case, the needed content already exists and writing the replacement is essentially a clerical task. And we know of someone who can be reasonably expected to take that task on: there's an editor who's disgusted enough at the existing content to cast a vote that will be futile unless the current 5-2 vote turns into a 5-10 one, and who will surely will feel a strong itch to edit when the VfD is closed with a Keep decision. --Jerzy(t) 17:28, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
      • Bad and inaccurate content should always be a reason for deletion. That way when someone finds the red link they may actually write a good article. As stated by several of the people voting to keep, VfD isn't cleanup. This article doesn't need cleanup. It needs to be written from scratch. How is keeping the article helping anyone? DCEdwards1966 17:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • After removal of misinformation by fvw, article is a candidate for speedy deletion due to lack of context and/or definition. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, an article can't be a CSD if there's a non-speedy-deleteable version in the history. It does make pretty clear how deleteworthy the article is though. --fvw* 03:22, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  • I've added some content. Is it any better now? ... Although I value fvw's contributions, it seems strange that this was listed on VfD. I mean, it takes time to nominate an article for deletion (and monitor its entry). Couldn't one just use that time to improve the article? -- Visviva 06:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Pah, you just made a few minor tweaks to my basicly comprehensive substub :-p. Nice job. And no, turning the subsubstub into a proper article takes 10 minutes, VfDing takes 20 seconds. Not that those 10 minutes would be wasted, but when I'm RC patrolling my priorities are on different things. --fvw* 07:32, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
    • Change vote to keep, obviously. --fvw*

end moved discussion

[edit] Piper's poem

This is kind of an off question but isn't there a legend about a man who is responsible for directing the rats to the sea? Was this story alluding the the same species - lemmings?

PS:Just curious!!!

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - This AFD seems abandoned. After almost a year, I think it's time to close. Rob 05:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have been regarded as no consensus, but I can't find any sign of it being formally closed. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashtree primary school

A primary school with no indication of notability in any form. JFW | T@lk 02:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete JFW | T@lk 02:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that it's a school makes it notable enough for me. It's a legitimate part of "all human knowledge", which is what Wikipedia is supposed to address. Dbenbenn
    • Not according to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Average Earthman 19:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • That same article says: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask youself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia." For this title, I would expect something about a school, not nothing at all. WWIN is quite clear about what kinds of facts it believes should not be included and gives a list of them.Dr Zen 05:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I should have been clearer - whether the school is suitable for Wikipedia is discussable (my view is elsewhere in this discussion). I was referring to the "all human knowledge" part - Wikipedia is not for "all human knowledge" as much human knowledge is useless to just about everyone else - e.g. you do not need to know what colour my coffee mug is. Average Earthman 15:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 06:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 07:02, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yet another notable, encyclopedic public institition.--Centauri 08:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The likelihood that this entry will be edited by multiple users, ensuring its quality and accuracy, is very small. The chances of anyone using Wikipedia as any sort of reference for this school are extremely small. The number of human beings, especially notable human beings, making use of this school is very small. The amount of useful, accurate and relevant information that this article could ever give about this school is very small. The net improvement to Wikipedia resulting from the maintainance of this article is very small. For reasons, delete. Lacrimosus 08:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: You could say that about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia. While true, it's no reason for deletion. Dan100 17:19, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • BEEFSTEW score of -3. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 12:10, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. schools are notable. RustyCale 13:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, garbage. Neutralitytalk 14:18, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: No indication that this school stands out from others. Just a building with teachers and students. Geogre 14:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tompagenet 14:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As said, all schools are notable, just like small towns and villages. Nothing particulary amazing about them, they just deserve a bit of info about them on here. We have the space, after all... Dan100 17:19, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Schools are inherently noteworthy. GRider\talk 19:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is to be kept, then frankly it's as big as it should get (unless it has or produces famous alumni in the future), anything else would be pointless padding. Personally, I'd prefer it if this were the start of a larger Education in Stevenage article (this appears to be the only school name linked to in the main Stevenage article), since an overview of the schools in the area is more useful than large numbers of small separate articles. Average Earthman 19:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a knowledgebase. RickK 20:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Could be if there was something particularly interesting about the school, and the article told us what it is, but as it is, I don't see anything of note here. RoySmith 21:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki to Anthony's school wiki if it's up. There just isn't anything notable about this that I can see. If it stays, I rather like Average Earthman's idea. The info wouldn't be orphaned that way. - Lucky 6.9 22:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal Keep; Newfoundglory 23:17, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Stevenage article--it has a 'schools' section already--and delete. A primary school associated with neither notable events nor highly notable alumni (Prime Ministers or monarchs) will never be more than a stub article.
    • Pardon; forgot to sign my commment. I also like Average Earthman's suggestion that Education in Stevenage be split off into another article--if and only if the main Stevenage entry gets to be unweildy. TenOfAllTrades 23:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Scores 10 out of 10 on the ZEEFSTEW test. "Notability" is not a criterion for deletion and even if it was, schools are central to their communities and consequently notable. Keep it.Dr Zen 01:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I appreciate that you don't consider notability a valid criterion, but it is necessary to acknowledge that a multitude of other Wikipedians do, to the extent that it can be considered a community practice. Leading on from that, notability is necessarily linked to the readers of the encyclopedia; otherwise, a five-year-old's favourite toy automatically becomes a high-priority topic, to Wikipedia's external embarrasment, and negligible advantage. Lacrimosus 08:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Some feel that "notability", a slippery concept with no clear definition, should be the standard for inclusion, but I don't see why it is necessary to acknowledge them. They're pretty good at putting that across for themselves. The widespread use of it as a term does not, however, make it an item of policy -- nor is it likely to become one, because it would be very difficult to define. One person's "notable" is the next person's "not notable", as we discover here every day. I don't understand what you are talking about when you discuss the "readers of the encyclopaedia. Our policy page very wisely points out that an encyclopaedia ought to include under each title what a reader would expect to find there. It is also careful to exclude items of only personal note, so a five-year-old's actual toy is excluded (although the type of toy is, rightly, included). I don't see what "external embarrassment" has to do with it. I'd be embarrassed by a Wikipedia that did not believe schools were worthy of inclusion in "all human knowledge".Dr Zen 03:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • "All human knowledge" isn't what we're arguing, as that is clearly not what Wikipedia is for. It is for the relevant, important and notable bits of human knowledge. The argument is whether a primary school is sufficiently worthy on it's own. Average Earthman 15:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -- Jimbo Wales. Tell Jimbo that's not what we're doing. It's certainly what I am doing. Dr Zen 07:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, it's certainly NOT what I am doing, as I don't want to bore everyone on the planet to tears with useless drivel. Come on, are you seriously saying that if someone put on a calendar of what colour underwear they were wearing each day you'd consider that a valid addition? Average Earthman 13:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Methinks you two are talking at cross purposes here. The article in question here is a far cry from narcissistic drivel. On the other hand, it would be easy to construe the "sum of all human knowledge" in a way that is inappropriate to the WP. I've considered that quote as part of my basic understanding of what WP is, too. But I think of the "sum of all knowledge" as different from "all knowledge." Essentially, it's what knowledge boils down to; it's the knowledge you can't get rid of without losing something important. And this article is an example of such knowledge; it's important to understanding the community of Stevenage, and the discourse community constituted by Stevenage people. -- Visviva 15:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Somebody in the WWW 01:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 02:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect with schools section of Stevenage (which as mentioned can be split into Education in Stevenage at a later date when required). Shane King 04:40, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect as ShaneKing suggests; although worthy of an article, there seems insufficient materiel to warrant a whole one. James F. (talk) 07:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. jni 07:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Stevenage and delete - Skysmith 09:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep All schools are notable. Britannica doesn't have the space or editorial resources to cover them all, but Wikipedia has one and will acquire the other. IMO it should aspire to cover everything that is in the next largest encyclopedia and much more as well. Philip 13:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)**Britannica has a website, too. Their website is no more limited in space than Wikipedia's.
  • Delete. For goodness sake, surely we can hold the line at primary schools. Why do people think a school (i.e. building where teachers work) is inherently notable? What's next, preschools? (Unsigned by User:BM —Korath (Talk) 04:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC))
    • Yes but let's get decent articles on all schools first. Schools are central parts of the communities they serve. We can't pretend they don't exist!Dr Zen 03:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • So are libraries, factories, refineries, warehouses, harbours, airports, subway and train stations, office buildings, laboratories, shops, military installations, town halls, museums, parks, parks and stadiums, hospitals, clinics, churches, theaters, prisons, and many other places where people gather every day often for hours at a time often in large numbers. Some of these merit Wikipedia articles, based on notability, and some do not. What makes schools "inherently" notable, according to you, while these other facilities have to pass a notability test? --BM 13:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Schools should be handled in context of their community, not necessarily as separate articles. And Mr Zen can always form his own kindergartenpedia - Skysmith 10:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Harbours, airports, subway and train stations often merit their own articles; many already have them. I should think that any notable public institution of which a substantial community has encyclopedic knowledge should eventually be covered on Wikipedia. Whether they should have their own articles depends on the structure and length of superordinate articles. -- Visviva 23:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons well articulated by Lacrimosus. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable school. Indrian 04:41, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Deletion should be reserved for articles which arguably harm our project. I would be happy to support merge and redirect to Stevenage or the hypothetical Education in Stevenage, however. The number of users eager to delete verifiable, valuable content is disturbing. Visviva 23:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The knowledge value of this entry is vanishingly small. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not Google II. --Calton 03:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect (or delete) as ShaneKing suggests; it shouldn't have its own article. I agree with BM's second comment. I think schools should have to meet some set of notability requirements, just as fire stations, businesses, or any other type of organization must establish notability. Their specific notability requirements don't have to be the same as those for businesses, but "because it's there" isn't enough. That's enough for cities, but that precident shouldn't necesarily extend to a more granular level. Some might argue that since every school will likely host many thousands of kids during its lifetime, it gains notability by sheer numbers (more than 100 people have heard of it). But any single supermarket will host many thousands of shoppers over time (most of which shop there many times a week for years on end), yet we're not rushing to give each individual supermarket location its own article. - Eisnel 23:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • please keep this article. Yuckfoo 07:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The simple fact that a school is small is no reason to exclude it from an encyclopaedia whose length is not limited. I see absolutely no reason to entirely remove such an article, especially when there are a plethora of articles covering sci-fi tv show characters and their "races"' temperments. Ask yourself if you would delete this article if it were long, in depth and well-researched -- I think not. Many great articles begin as stubs.Zantastik 09:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some additional content and references have been added. I would say it's now a fairly decent stub. I don't suppose that will change the mind of anyone who remains attached to the nebulous notion of notability ... but I mention it nonetheless. ... For this topic, as for so many others where extensive information is not available online, a properly encyclopedic article requires someone with genuine local knowledge. I suspect that there are many folk in Shephall who could contribute just such an article, detailing the role of the institution in local life and politics, and I don't see any reason to assume a priori that none of them will ever join the Wikipedia. -- Visviva 08:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Second choice merge/redir to Stevenage. Niteowlneils 19:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What is "relevant"? What is relevant to some is irrelevant to others. If all "irrelevant" but true information were removed from Wikipedia, there would be one tenth the number of articles. Andrew pmk 23:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion


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

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

The result of the debate was - Deleted --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Valerie

A "brutist" musician for whom no recordings or concerts are claimed. Doesn't seem notable to me. Hoary 03:09, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Delete agree with above. --Boothy443 03:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: He's 17. He is influenced not by the 1919 Cabaret Voltaire, the 1919 magazine by the same name, nor by the 1980's punk band by the same name, but the brand new (previously VfD'd) Cabaret Voltaire. Geogre 14:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless there was some original contribution which could be shown. RoySmith 21:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this more amusing than average pimple puff vanity nonsense. Wyss 02:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:12, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The random joe

About therandomjoe.com, which seems an unremarkable site of an unremarkable web development company.

(A distinctly mediocre one, actually: while its main page boasts All our site [sic] are W3C Approved and Certified with todays' [sic] Compatibility Standards, submitting that very page to W3C's HTML validator shows bathetic failure, as the page lacks a doctype declaration, contains Microsoft proprietary attributes, and worse. Duh!)

Not notable. Hoary 05:05, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. LostCluster 06:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete mlk ✉♬ 06:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 06:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I am the owner and operator of The Random Joe, and I would like it to be noted that we are currently going through a redesign at the moment. The current page, which doesnt no validate, does work in most browers, but is temporary. It is only a template while the new site is being made... btw, I would NEVER use frontpage if that is what you mean... added at 07:57, 2005 Jan 4 by 24.18.105.75; oddly, the same IP number that created the article in the first place
  • Delete - Even if this is true, Mr. Random Joe, I cannot see how this apparently larval-stage web development company is notable. – ClockworkSoul 08:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Lacrimosus 08:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Me Again, My name is Saidan Ryuuza, not Mr. Random Joe for one... and my company is not larval-stage. You name me a Web Design company off the top of your head... i can name off some hosting companies, and a few Designers, only because I am in the business. My point being that you should not remove the entry for my site on the basis of revenue, or how many employees i have   ...added at 08:34, 2005 Jan 4 by 24.18.105.75
    • I hereby name Webcredible off the top of my head, although I'm not in the business. I'd also name Vivtek as a fine company that has no employees at all (a one-man outfit). I don't rush to say that either is Wikipedia-worthy, though. Hosting services? pair.com for one. What's your point? Or rather, how is it that your company is outstandingly notable among web design companies and thus Wikipedia-worthy? Hoary 13:27, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising, which is not allowed, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 14:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Advertising Tompagenet 14:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Saidan, you should look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the items on Wikipedia not being "a general knowledge base," and Wikipedia articles not being "vehicles for advertising and self-promotion" or a "Yellow Pages or a resource for conducting business." Samaritan 19:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn. Newfoundglory 23:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad for website so minor it doesn't even have an Alexa rating. —Stormie 00:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn ad. Alexa is not a reliable indicator of traffic, nor of notability. Wyss 02:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Saidan: It's not so much the number of employees you have or the quality of your work, but rather lack of notability. We have to delete lots of articles about small businesses for that reason. "therandomjoe" gets seven unique Google hits, three from www.therandomjoe.com and four from forum posts. Everyone else: The article's author seems nice enough, and he's come here to defend his article without flaming us (which is rare), so please don't bite the newcomer. =o) - Eisnel 20:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tai Namkung

Not notable. --fvw* 05:14, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Non-notable, even if he has had three ex-girlfriends. Delete Lacrimosus 08:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thue | talk 16:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure how many ex-girlfriends you need for notability but three is definitely not enough. --LeeHunter 22:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, v. Wyss 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, three ex-girlfriends isn't bad for a 12-year-old. Still, Delete. RickK 06:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. --MPerel 03:01, Jan 9, 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 - Deleted --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manjunatha kori

Vanity. Delete.-gadfium 06:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 00:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, v. Wyss 02:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity.--Boothy443 08:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems that the lower case surname rule applies here. Delete. Edeans 01:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deadfunction

Doesn't establish notability (or much of anything else, for that matter). --fvw* 06:48, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Lacrimosus 08:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If it could be expanded to give some interesting information about the band's original contributions (assuming there are any), and assuming it's not simply vanity, it might be working keeping, but as it is, I'd say Delete. RoySmith 19:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, explained to be nn. Wyss 02:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chi Theta Chi

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 06:59, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Merge note on the coop house at Stanford with Theta Chi and redirect --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Merge is inappropriate. —Korath (Talk) 20:09, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 02:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:20, Jan 7, 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 - kept

[edit] Big rigs:over the road racing

A review, not an article about the game. RickK 07:57, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless there is evidence of notability. Lacrimosus 08:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) Seems to broad consensus that subject is notable. Lacrimosus 08:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a stub that can be expanded and the fact that it is the worst game ever made is evident and makes it note worthy--203.29.151.3 10:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the Plan 9 from Outer Space of video games. iMeowbot~Mw 11:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. So bad, it's good :) Dan100 17:17, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. If it actually is the Plan 9 (such the good film) of video games, then the article should have proof of that. The external link, incidentally, is broken. Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep but it needs to be rewritten top-to-bottom to remove POV (according to what authority is it the worst video game ever? I've heard the same said of Hell: A Cyberpunk Adventure and Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness). There are other videogame articles out there, so by that account it's worthy of a page, but what's here needs to be redone. Also the title of the article needs to be corrected for capitalization. 23skidoo 18:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I've taken a first pass at addressing these concerns. Neutrality is difficult in this case because the game's sheer badness is precisely what makes it notable. iMeowbot~Mw 20:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • That's fair, plus there are a lot of articles on individual video games. But to remain NPOV someone pretty much needs to be quoted saying it's bad (i.e. "Video Game Magazine named it the worst game of 2004" or something like that). 23skidoo 22:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD is not cleanup. GRider\talk 19:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • What's that supposed to mean? Where did I mention cleaning the article up? I suggested deletion. RickK 20:02, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • It means that VfD is not a tool to remove POV. We have {{cleanup}} and {{pov}} tags already for this. Welcome back. GRider\talk 23:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wrongly titled. If you keep it, rename it. Gdr 22:00, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Keep, retitle and send it in for a major in-frame overhaul. Needs to be as NPOV as possible and needs to incorporate reasons why it's so bad...although the one online review I read sums it up pretty well. To me, "Super Pitfall" for the Nintendo NES was and is the ne plus ultra of truly bad games. This looks like it might actually be on a par! - Lucky 6.9 22:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, reword to be NPOV, but the subject does merit an article. Thryduulf 23:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. Something this bad deserves an article(take a look at the gamespot video). --Aqua 06:49, Jan 10, 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] Defunct Games

Not notable, the almighty google only gives 1.5k hits for "defunct games" console, and most of those aren't even referring to this site. --fvw* 08:24, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like self-promotion of a minor website. --Carnildo 08:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Defunct er... Delete, nn ad. Wyss 02:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotion. RickK 23:17, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No longer self-promotion. Now just stubby, and needing cleanup. The website it's about looks like it might be of interest, and the people authoring content might even add lists of bad console games, and such, to Wikipedia. Gavin White 18:35, Jan 8, 2005 (PST)
  • Delete. Still not notable. Indrian 03:59, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, evean after the cleanup the heart of the article is just a list of the review staff. -Willmcw 05:28, 9 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 - kept

[edit] Magnetic evaporative cooling

Subject is real but article is a hoax. (Nicolaus Demalone is made up; technique invented recently, not in 1892; no such thing as "heat particles", quantum or otherwise; Ice-9 is a fictional substance from the Kurt Vonnegut science fiction novel Cat's Cradle). See [1] for a real explanation of the technique. Until someone writes a real article it would be better not to have this nonsense and fakery here. Gdr 10:32, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Fixed please check current status Stirling Newberry 15:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. VfD withdrawn. Gdr 16:35, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep. Megan1967 00:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep revised article. Original version was deletable. Comment: Even for vastly improved articles, the VfD header should remain on the article until the discussion period is over and the discussion page has been properly archived. Rossami (talk) 00:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: that seems needlessly bureaucratic. Gdr 01:44, 2005 Jan 5 (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] ...friend

This is a dictdef which I don't think is worth moving to Wiktionary. David Johnson [T|C] 15:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genielab

Not notable, 4 google hits. Thue | talk 15:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. RoySmith 19:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, website flyer. Megan1967 00:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn ad. Wyss 02:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Thacker

This is very interesting because i am an other Chris Thacker From canada

This is pretty obviously a vanity page. The acting references might be notable, but he's not listed on IMDB so his appearances (if they actually existed) were uncredited (and probably as extras). Appearing as an extra in a movie does not make you notable. --Kelly Martin 18:05, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Here is a headshot and stuff. Does he look familiar to anyone? It says on there he's semi-pro, suggesting an extra. iMeowbot~Mw 18:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a vanity page. Needs major clean-up and wikifying to boot. 23skidoo 18:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no notability established Egil 20:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no such person anywhere on IMDb. --MarkSweep 23:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Wyss 02:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. not even well written. --AmeenDausha 20:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear n00b

Made up word (not notable). "Nuclear+n00b" A google search for it produces a mere 2 results. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable.--RoySmith 19:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable. K1Bond007 20:27, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism; not notable. --Kelly Martin 21:00, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fishwrench

spam Michael Ward 20:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Content-free. 23skidoo 22:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, website flyer. Megan1967 00:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as pure, trivial ad. The marginally creative content, unfortunately, prevents it from being a speedy under the current criteria. Wyss 02:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barruly

Dicdef with inadequate context to even figure out what it is referring to. I think this is a heraldic term. Nothing links to it. It's also word for word from one of the online dictionaries Google uses, although that in and of itself doesn't make it a copyvio (doctrine of merger). --Kelly Martin 20:59, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) from VfD:

Old rumor that turned out to be Nintendo DS. Non-notable. The user (IP) who created it also has a history of vandalising articles pertaining to Nintendo. K1Bond007 22:23, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; nn. Newfoundglory 23:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, not an article. Wyss 02:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe make a redirect to Nintendo DS, otherwise delete 23skidoo 03:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I said it turned out to be the DS, but that might not be true, that was more a guess since I don't recall ever hearing what it really was, if anything. It was just a rumor. K1Bond007 05:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • A little searching [2] reveals that there was a brief rumor last March that the Nintendo DS would be renamed Nitro before retail launch. Wasn't true. A note of this should be added to the page for the NDS. There's a chance that this could be searched for, and redirects are cheap. --Plutor 19:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Plutor. Redirect.--JuntungWu 06:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I originaly made the entry. I have clarified with the name Project Nitro. Purhaps a redirect there would be appropriate. - Ritz 10:20, 6 Jan '05
  • Redirect to Project Nitro. Megan1967 03:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of italo disco artists

[edit] TEC Decimal Day

I am the author of this article, and wish it to be deleted because it appears the related article, Triangular Earth Calendar will be deleted as well. Thank you. --DeWayne Lehman 22:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as an honest user mistake/fork the original author wants gone. Wyss 02:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Those meddling kids

Apparently there is another punk band by this name started in the 1970s. This one, though, is less than a year old with no albums identified and no evidence of non-local interest. Delete band vanity. Gazpacho 23:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 02:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. Edeans 00:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Exchange*

(Note: lengthy commentary moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/The Exchange*. If you have comments please put them there. If you want to vote please vote here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC))

This band article lists one (short) album. They're "planning to tour extensively," their recordings "shine with potential," and most of the article comes from the band's web site. Best of luck, guys. For now, delete band vanity. Gazpacho 23:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It isn't the job of Wikipedia to give unknown bands attention. DCEdwards1966 00:45, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not affiliated with The Exchange. They are start-up musicians. Please, keep. Jamirus99 01:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe Jamirus99 has a point, keep StrYkEr963 02:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Having read what has been said, keep. DragonAvatar 02:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, however why is there an asterisk in the title? The article says the asterisk was only used on a certain webpage to differentiate the band from another with a similar name. I don't see a reason for it to be used here, so recommend the title be corrected. It should also be reworked to removed POV, and if this is quoted verbatim from a Website, then this becomes a copyvio issue. 23skidoo 02:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm a band inclusionist, but this is a PoV rant with some info about a group. Where's the music? The shows? nn. Wyss 02:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band vanity (as well as utterly POV boosterism). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Famous first, page second is the way it works. A desire to promote them so they don't "sink unnoticed into the deep waters that surround Indie rock" is not a reason for them to have a page. Delete this, if they become famous later then a page can be written. Shane King 04:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously, didn't read the Vanity page: " Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotion is not what the Wikipedia's about. Whan the get as big as Yellowcard, then they get the article. On an unrelated note, personal testamonials are a bit of a problem under the GFDL, aren't they? hfool/Roast me 01:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Another person who didn't read the Vanity article. Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Start-up musicians are wonderful things, as are start-up businesses. Once they have become notable then we should have an article about them. -Willmcw 05:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Three in a row: " Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)