Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 6

[edit] Animation Central

Any web community which is "still under construction" (according to the article) almost certainly isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Spamvertising. David Johnson [T|C] 00:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this advert. Rje 02:10, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 05:04, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete forum spam. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, advertisment, not notable. Any "community" that only has 80 members is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Somebody in the WWW 00:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as spam, platform for a link. Wyss 04:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity ad. --Deathphoenix 19:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Never heard of it, I'm an animation buff. -- user:zanimum

[edit] A.J. Plast

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 00:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete Cdc 05:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bank of Ayudhya from same source is a copyvio, but probably more notable. Egil 06:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nice attempt at an ad, though. WP not a business directory. Wyss 04:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity ad. --Deathphoenix 19:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sales Director

Dictdef. --fvw* 00:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 05:02, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not really a dictdef. It's a job title for which there are so many possible shades of meaning, and so many alternative titles, that it would be pointless to try to define it, or even to redirect in any meaningful way. Deb 20:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this could only grow into a fork. Wyss 04:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not useful. Megan1967 02:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Rogers

As much as this band sound interesting and I'm all for supporting independent music, I don't think they're notable enough for Wikipedia. They've played a few shows locally and produced their own album, but anyone can do that nowadays. David Johnson [T|C] 01:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sometimer

Original research, not half as funny as it thinks it is. Also, quite POV towards the sometimers, but that of course could be fixed. If it were worth it. Which it isn't. JRM 01:30, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Delete RoySmith 03:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:54, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism Cdc 05:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete messy, overlong dicdef of a trivial construction. Wyss 04:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A joke, and a rather tedious one. Edeans 03:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LTM

non-notable forum term. possible merge with a list on internet shorthand or something. DCEdwards1966 02:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Laughing to Myself. LOL is no longer acceptable in forums. I think he means that the action of laughing out loud (and not the abbreviation "LOL") is unacceptable. It. Is. A. Joke. (Zzz.) Anyway, the abbreviation "LOL" (typically suggesting the mildest of amusement, if any) is prevalent in forums. Don't merge; instead, delete, leaving "LTM" open for "Leica thread mount" (and perhaps more too). Hoary 06:18, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, LTM means love to mother. Wyss 04:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't merge this without a good reference. Delete. And BTW, LTM is a British reissues record label who probably deserve an article - David Gerard 20:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Abraham a Sancta Clara

from VfD:

This appears to be a hoax. A few telltale signs here: firstly, there is one edit by a known vandal yet it is wikified and has a Template:1911 tag on the image. I can find no information on barefoot Augustans on Google and I've never heard of them before! However I could be wrong about this. I'm putting it on VfD anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep -- It appears to check out. Searching for "Barefooted Augustinians" gives 197 hits on Google, the first being from the Catholic Encyclopedia [1]. "Abraham à Sancta Clara" gets 153 hits, mostly in German. DCEdwards1966 04:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup, it's definately from the EB. A lot of our from-1911 articles are actually being created by anons, oddly enough. --fvw* 05:02, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • And the barefooted Augustinians are even mentioned in our own article on the Augustinians. Keep. That was easy. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Notahoax. —RaD Man (talk) 10:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Famous for preaching in Vienna when it was besieged by the Ottoman Turks for the second time in 1683. See [2]. I moved the page to Abraham a Sancta Clara, since the apostrophe is not correct (after all, this is a Latin name). Martg76 23:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the most famous German-language preachers of all times. The Augustiner-Barfüßer (in Latin: OAD Ordo Augustiniensum Discalceatorum) are also real, although they are commonly known as Discalced Augustinians in English. See the entry de:Augustiner-Discalceaten in the German version of Wikipedia. --AndreasPraefcke 07:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Jannik

vanity. no google for Jannik Horlem. "He is not very wellknown (sic) yet." Michael Ward 03:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. Gazpacho 04:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:44, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as pages for people shouldn't be just their first names even if he were notable, which he clearly isn't since even the submitter says as much. DreamGuy 21:42, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity carrier. Wyss 04:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 19:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dracology

Dracology returns 200 hits on Google, some of which from Wikipedia mirrors. No pages link to it. As far as I can tell, it is not used in any notable fantasy series. I has received no more than six edits since it was created eight months ago, and has been listed on the 'dead-end pages' for at least five months. In my opinion, this article will not be encyclopedic. Its apparent lack of notable fantasy usage is an indication that it is probably irrelevant as well. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 03:32, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:42, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even among fantasy fans, "dragonology" is a far more common term. Starblind 18:17, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- while "dragonology" is not a word (lots of nonexistent words are unfortunately somewhat common, especially in fiction) and "dracology" would be the likely word if it did exist, I don't think either one is notable enough for an article. DreamGuy 21:38, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The word dracology is very rarly used. Dragonology is slightly more used. - Jeltz talk 23:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original classification, trivial construction, nn. Wyss 04:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Dragon. -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Dragon, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Dystrakted

Article does not establish notability. --Kelly Martin 03:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Cdc 05:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the DJ, delete the DJ, delete the DJ, delete the DJ. Wyss 04:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 19:57, 7 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 delete. – ABCD 22:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D2l

Advertisement/vanity page with no evidence of notability. --Kelly Martin 03:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • ...and no evidence of content, either. Looks like it's already been deleted. 23skidoo 19:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This vfd entry's header was mislinked to D2I, and so never properly resolved; thus I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this for being worthless corporate-speak (and for being an ad). Bubamara 04:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep While this isn't the most notable company, the fact that they have been around a number of years and have legitimate clients like the University of Guelph would seem to indicate to me that they are notable enough for an entry. I have rewritten the page to be more informative and less of an ad. --Fuzzball! 21:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can add some third-party verifiability that would be most useful - David Gerard 09:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Added these sources to the page: [3] and [4] --Fuzzball! 03:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten page. Kappa 21:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless further estabilished/verified. Radiant_* 12:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • still delete. now it reads like a press release instead of an ad, but I just don't think one company with 2 clients is particularly notable. yes to third party verification. Bubamara 08:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. Fawcett5 06:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still no evidence of notability after rewrite. Indrian 14:28, Apr 8, 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] D'Artagnon Emile

There is so little to say about this article. It appears to be so devoid of facts that it can't even spell the name of its topic correctly, and assigns to him the same birthdate as one of his better known chronologers. --Kelly Martin 03:37, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. In its current form, this article has little to recommend keeping it for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless extensively expanded and rewritten. Without looking at the Discussion page where the context of the article is explained, it's impossible to tell what this is about. 23skidoo 04:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • How about fixing up the article? Perhaps adding something like, "His wikipedia article was Deleted on Jan 14th, 2005". RoySmith 20:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here worth keeping. Megan1967 01:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, little or no information with zero context. Wyss 04:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ massive

Yet another DJ whose article is almost certainly a vanity page, and in any case does not establish notability. --Kelly Martin 03:39, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone stubs or improves it. Apparently refers to an old school DJ of some note. Gazpacho 05:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:27, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the DJ, delete the DJ, delete the DJ, delete the DJ. Wyss 04:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity-stub. --Deathphoenix 20:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete same as above's comment. bernlin2000 ∞ 23:36, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • D-l33t--ZayZayEM 13:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Francis Geraci

this was nominated for deletion by fvw

  • Delete. No deletion reason was given, but this is a one-line insult of an attorney's advertisement. Joke entry, no potential to become encyclopedic. Barno 18:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- possibly speedy delete under the short sentence rule. DreamGuy 21:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • How odd, I distinctly remember saving a VfD nom for this one, having it not turn up, and thinking it was only database lag. Delete, obviously, and thanks for the fixup Michael. --fvw* 04:01, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as too short, little context and possible libel. Wyss 04:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur, this sounds like a CSD. --Deathphoenix 20:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While it may be that Chapter 13 litigation is as about scintillating as the tariff policies of the Second French Empire, that is no reason to slam this attorney. Edeans 04:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D Data

Advertising copy. While they might be notable, it's a goddamn ad. --Kelly Martin 04:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • No vote yet, but please watch the language. Gazpacho 04:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm? I've heard of remove personal attacks, but unless you're calling goddam a personal attack on god, I think goddam[n] is perhaps showing a little too much emotional investment but apart from that perfectly appropriate. Delete by the way. --fvw* 04:56, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Don't edit other people's Talk page comments. Delete. RickK 06:41, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this press release. Wyss 04:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity ad. --Deathphoenix 20:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-fluorine

This is a more serious version of an article that was speedied, but it's still an imaginary subject with no indication of notability. Gazpacho 04:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Every element (theoretically) has an anti counterpart. Creating articles about any/all of these elements is pointless. The existence of anti-elements should be discussed in the anti-matter article. DCEdwards1966 06:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge and Redirect with a listing of other anti-particles. This is not an imaginary topic, and is notable. The phenomenon of anti-particles and anti-elements has been theorized in Stephen Hawking's books as well as in very high-level textbooks and handbooks. ÅrУnT†∈ 04:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) changed vote to Delete ÅrУnT†∈ 23:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    The notability of antimatter and antiparticles (which predate Hawking by decade or so) is not disputed. Anti-fluorine is just a direct logical consequence, and a rather arbitrary one. If it has figured prominently in someone's research or some work of fiction, fill me in on the details and I'll reconsider. Gazpacho 07:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless there's something notable about fluorine that makes it's mirror particle somehow different from all the other mirror particles. --fvw* 04:57, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge and Redirect with listing of other anti-elements (is there one)? Antiparticles exist, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe that antifluorine could exist, but without some showing that antifluorine is more interesting than, say, anticarbon, I see no need for it to have its own article. --Kelly Martin 05:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • If there is a listing of anti-elements, we need to delete it; moving it to anti-element and deleting the redirect would make sense, though. Ben Standeven 09:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete or transwiki to antiwikipedia. This is not an encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If we Merge this with the Flourine article, we'll get a matter/anti-matter explosion big enough to destroy half the quadrant. Can't risk that, so we had better Delete it. BTW, there is an antihydrogen (note, no hyphen) article which is worth keeping because it has some interesting info about an anti-element which apparantly has actually been produced in a lab. RoySmith 16:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, with a suitable article on anti-particles, then add redirect. Megan1967 01:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as arcanely hypothetical for now. Wyss 04:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. There is an antihydrogen article that is interesting. OTOH, antihelium redirects to antimatter, there is an antielement article, and Category:Antimatter for similar matters. (just read in the Preview that Roysmith also saw the antihydrogen article) --Deathphoenix 20:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Category sequestered with the colon trick, to keep VfD out of the Category. --Jerzy(t) 03:47, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)]
  • Delete. As others have said, unless we're going to have an anti-element article for every element, it doesn't make sense to have this. Josh Cherry 15:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above Andris 21:29, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Del. Every word is true, and worthless. It would be amazing if antielement doesn't already render this teeth-gnashingly redundant. Delete, and schedule for Undeletion debate in 3005 January, in case its status has changed without our noticing. --Jerzy(t) 13:13, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  • I'm also quite concerned about uncontrolled matter/anti-matter reactions. As Wikipedia has not yet secured a supply of high quality Di-lithium crystals to control the reaction, I'm afraid I have to vote to Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and create antifluorine as a redirect to antielement. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:26, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Antikeep. Article as it stands is redundant. Unlikely to become encyclopaedic within the next century or two. Raven42 13:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing special about anti-flourine. In theory, there could exist anti-water, anti-milk, an anti-Jimbo Wales. Unless we're prepared to have pages or redirects for all of them, this should go. -- Walt Pohl 18:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge I think it's interesting. Would like to know more. Salazar 21:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Damon Carr

Please Review the Latest Edit. This is not a Vanity Page. I have done incredibly notable and 'Encyclopedia' worthy accomplishments.

vanity, self-promo, nn. master's student in compsci at Columbia. CEO of his own firm (agilefactor) which is of no apparent notability. author of a forthcoming book which will supposedly dramatically increase productivity. here's an example of his blog. Michael Ward 04:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Notability not established. Having been granted a patent, having gone to Redmond and having an office on Manhattan does not suffice. Egil 07:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this stuff is not notable. Wyss 04:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 20:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. When I first saw the name, I thought this might be Deep Space Nine fancruft. However, I discovered something even less notable. Edeans 04:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

No potential to become encyclopedic. 203.61.88.62 04:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete. --Kelly Martin 05:11, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I assume we have an article about Kelvin (Wikipedia is so damned slow I don't want to take the time to look right now.) DCEdwards1966 06:27, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • You can put prefixes before every unit. Doesn't make it material for a seperate article. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • GigaDelete RoySmith 22:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, else terrakelvins will be next. Wyss 04:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to kelvin or 1 E9 K. Eric119 06:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to either of the above. (wow, there's a 1 E9 K article. I'm impressed.) --Deathphoenix 20:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not; 1 E9 K should be deleted too --RoySmith 20:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, to Kelvin. Megan1967 02:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That's really frikken hot. Delete it and its buddy, 1 E9 K. Is this even a real term that needs a redirect? hfool/Roast me 02:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not enough for article. Pavel Vozenilek 22:20, 11 Jan 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 - Deleted --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Andvik

Vanity page for a hobbyist muso who has some tunes on a web page. --Stormie 04:57, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable Egil 07:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ...can't bear to call himself a musician, eh? nn, ad, vanity. Wyss 04:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 20:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete vanity --Boothy443 22:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delicious advertising

Self-promotion. A minor, non-notable German ad company doing what it does best. Cdc 01:34, 6 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 delete, apparently as a speedy at 07:10, 6 Jan 2005 by User:MacGyverMagic who wrote article created by mistake, deleted on creator's request

[edit] Uk std code 1252

Page is empty. Created by me by mistook RHaworth 05:30, 2005 Jan 6 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Doreterna

Vanity entry for a metal band. According to their one "release" is a two-track demo; the second paragraph is a more accurate description of their prominence; they've also apparently done one track on a compilation for unsigned bands. Cdc 01:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable at this point in time especially given they haven't even released their debut album. Maybe if they hit the big-time... Grox 11:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:27, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if it'd not been for that codswallop hype about making progress towards securing a record contract, I would have voted to keep. Wyss 04:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 20:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • NOT DELETE! What's the point of Deleting it? Someone else will only put it back up again...and the Article has now been edited....

[edit] Damian Michałowski

Setting aside the unique encoding in the title, this is an obvious vanity page with no discernable value. --Kelly Martin 05:04, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've moved this VfD page so it has a title that's at least valid ISO-8859-1. Delete. --fvw* 20:09, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, possible vanity. Wyss 04:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Dbenbenn 04:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 20:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was belated delete. If just found this article via an image cull and was about to speedy it under A7 when I checked 'what link shere' and found this AFD. The JPStalk to me 11:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heklina

not notable. hostess of a drag show at San Fancisco club. (page history is missing for some reason). Michael Ward 05:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like self-promotion. Page history is back - was anonymous post. RHaworth 06:11, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete, a cameo in a widely distributed music video is not inherently notable. Wyss 04:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Who the heck is Heklina? gK ¿? 08:37, 10 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Heirpedia

The article proposes a new idea for a work about Wikipedia. It's not an announcement that an "Heirpedia" is about to exist, or even a description of work in progress; it's closer to a pipedream. Thus it hardly seems encyclopedic. And even if its subject matter existed, the article might be better plonked in a different namespace. Hoary 06:12, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 06:37, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because it just doesn;t belong in the encyclopedia proper. I recommended to user to move it to his user page. DreamGuy 21:35, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, not an article. Wyss 04:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Got userfied, now just needs to be deleted. hfool/Roast me 02:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of Hipster Relativity

wec comic cruft DCEdwards1966 06:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harmon, Tyler C.

not so much notable. destined for greatness though.Michael Ward 06:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 04:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Gazpacho 09:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, even though he's attending the highly respected University of Oklahoma. --Deathphoenix 20:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above comments. -- Hadal 04:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought about a userfy, but they just keeping adding junk. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 05:02, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

ad DCEdwards1966 06:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

116 Google hits. One sentence, with web address. Seems like an ad to me. DCEdwards1966 22:22, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
The name is pronounced as Bamsemums in one word. (Hardly anybody but the vendor writes it with two words.) If you google "bamsemums" as one word, you'll find over 3 900 relevant hits. --Verdlanco (talk) 19:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, most of those hits are not relevant. Searching for "bamsemums chocolate" only returns 47 hits. DCEdwards1966 05:50, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Not all hits are relevant, that's why I didn't give an exact number. But I estimate that at least 3 900 of the Google hits (4 000 if you count the hits with the name spelled as two separate words) are refering to the candy from the Nidar chocolate factory. That many hits can surely not be all ads. --Verdlanco (talk) 17:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In the first couple of pages I saw more hits for a motorcycle club with that name than I did for the candy. Some others appeared to be usernames. That is why I added chocolate to the search. To weed out the ones not talking about the candy. DCEdwards1966 19:49, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
I see. But I doubt that anyone who didn't know about the candy would invent a name like Bamsemums independently. I checked those motorcycle references. One guy liked this one bike so much he called it "the tough guys' bamsemums", another compared the weight of a motorcycle part to the weight of a bag of bamsemums candy. So in fact they, too, (indirectly) talk about the Nidar product. --Verdlanco (talk) 16:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be notable enough and not advertisement either. bbx 08:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs cleanup/NPOV (is "yummy" POV?) but I think it's keepable. DreamGuy 21:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I took out the yummy, needs expansion, more cleanup. Wyss 04:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Clean up. I think it's a subtle ad. --Deathphoenix 20:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, borderline notability. Megan1967 02:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just some random candy. Niteowlneils 20:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • please keep this Yuckfoo 04:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Very popular candy in all of Norway. If this is removed, I think Mars bar, Snickers, etc. will also have to go. --Verdlanco (talk) 10:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an ad because it has an external link? Jeez, man. Keep.Dr Zen 10:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • One sentence with a link to the manufacturers site looks like an ad to me, man. DCEdwards1966 20:02, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't be applying for any jobs with ad agencies any time soon, man.Dr Zen 00:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep could be improved but noteworthy. Salazar 21:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid stub, allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 22:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Fraser White

Grad student. In February 2004 he formed a pop band called The Beat Trap. Michael Ward 07:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Apparently his music has distracted him from his studies to the extent that he hasn't even mastered capitalizing people's names. Delete. JamesMLane 09:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 04:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 20:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GeddesHumanistCalendar

Original research? Whether it is or not, I can find zero Google hits for "GeddesHumanistCalendar", "Geddes Humanist Calendar" or Geddes "Humanist Calendar". RickK 08:00, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity calendar. Wyss 04:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I once invented my own calendar, too, in base twelve! And it's no less encyclopedic than this one. Delete. — Ливай | ☺ 09:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable original research. If it had more usage or notability, then keep. --Deathphoenix 20:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General time dilation

This article is a vanity page posted by user JimJast to promote his own pet non-standard cosmology that no one else in the field even remotely accepts. JimJast is an astronomy student who wants to develop his idea, but wikipedia is not the place for it. 67.172.158.8 18:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Dilate, err...delete. Not because it's a non-standard cosmology, though. Such theories are perfectly encyclopedic as long as they have a substantial following, but this one fails the Google test with only 44 unique hits, most of them not mentioning any alternative cosmology. I can't seem to find anything about it that isn't either on Wikipedia or one of its forks except for an essay written by a W. Jim Jastrzebski, likely the author of the article, so this seems to qualify as original research. — Ливай | ☺ 23:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep for now until I verify its original research. Megan1967 01:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as original research, it's a reasonable possibility but article provides zero evidence of peer review. Wyss 04:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable original research. Not a bad article to move to a user page, but that's it. --Deathphoenix 20:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Salazar 02:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, unsure if it's BS or not. Carrp 00:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Can someone tell me why an admin hasn't deleted this page yet? Joshuaschroeder 07:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

A job description, not an encyclopedia article. RickK 08:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Bah, Delete. Grox 11:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Valid topic, but cleanup and move to Accounting scholarship or somesuch. Martg76 23:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC).
    • Keep as redirect to discourage the recreation of the article as a job description.Martg76 00:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Wyss 04:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Would be valid as a profession description, hence I concur with Martg76 - move & cleanup keep as a redirect - Skysmith 11:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, else we see job descriptions on WP. Next we'll see "click here to apply for this job". Keep the article as it is merged with accounting scholarship. Move useful content to Accounting scholarship. Keep would retain the article title. --Deathphoenix 22:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I cleaned up up the page and moved what remained of it to accounting scholarship. Those who have already cast their votes are encouraged to have another look. Martg76 03:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not a save: the title inherantly states a defective factoring of the info. No one should change their vote bcz of the content having gone into a potentially valid article. On principle, i am nominating the new title for VfD tho i have no opinion yet on its retention. --Jerzy(t) 22:06, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  • Del. Wrong way to factor the info is implicit in the title; changing title to Redir does not remove the title from the jurisdiction of VfD. --Jerzy(t) 22:06, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Jakob gehring

memorial article for teen killed in car accident. Michael Ward 08:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Sad, but not an encyclopedic article. Delete. RickK 08:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; Agreed, as above. Newfoundglory 12:54, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia articles are not memorials. — Ливай | ☺ 00:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's a memorial. Wyss 04:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Possibly candidate for wikimorial but not here - delete - Skysmith 11:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete memorial. WP:WIN clearly states that WP is not the place for memorials. --Deathphoenix 20:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Actual infinite

Christian evangelism. Original research, and a pointless fork of Infinity. -- Zarquon 08:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete —Ashley Y 10:29, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • So incredibly needs to be deleted, I'm just sorry that speedy delete doesn't seem to cover this. DreamGuy 21:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, deep thoughts (also faulty logic, but that's not a criterion for deletion). — Ливай | ☺ 00:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless fork. Megan1967 01:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sophomoric deep thoughts used to prop up a religious ad. Wyss 04:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete essay/OR/soapboxing. Gazpacho 09:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all POV forks. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV essay. I love articles that start with (article name) cannot exist. Maybe it should belong in the NonExistantWiki (NEW). --Deathphoenix 20:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, personal essay, cannot be made NPOV. "Possible-probable, my black hen/She lays eggs in the Relative When/She doesn't lay eggs in the Positive Now/Because she's unable to postulate how." (—Fredrick WInsor, A Space Child's Mother Goose) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sophomoric essay, obscure joke or silly soapboxing? I leave it to the reader to decide. Edeans 04:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, this concept comes from a semi-famous published essay which attempts to justify theism by (among other things) distinguishing between a "potential infinite" (such as those dealing with Zeno's paradox) and an "actual infinite". If I can find the essay and the author, maybe I'll try removing all the POV and reworking the article to explain what the concept is, who first proposed it, what it tries to prove, possible logical fallacies inherent in it, etc. Jeff 21:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- give Lunatic Fringe a chance to fix it up as he suggests.--Christofurio 22:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think I'm going to get around to doing this (or at least not anytime soon). I say to delete the article in the meantime. --Jeff 19:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maya shivakumar

Not notable. Delete. utcursch 09:17, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 10:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible prank. Wyss 04:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 20:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, probable vanity. Megan1967 02:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above comments. -- Hadal 05:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myrna Bingham

Article makes no claim of notability. Thue | talk 10:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sad but non-notable. Grox 11:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete RoySmith 16:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as genealogy. Wyss 04:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete memorial. WP:WIN states that WP isn't a place for memorials. This page was blanked except for the VfD notice, so I had to look in the history to read it.
  • Delete, not notable. Appears to have been blanked. Megan1967 02:21, 8 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 delete. Comment: It was apparently speedy deleted at 09:13, 6 Jan 2005 by User:Zero0000. The subsequent vote by User:Kappa shows that this was not a non-controversial decision and that speedy delete was inappropriate. Nevertheless, I consider it unlikely that it would have survived the VfD vote even if given the full discussion period. I elect to leave it deleted. Rossami (talk) 00:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bumfluff

Slang term, unlikely to be expanded. Maybe a redirect to facial hair? Mgm|(talk) 10:56, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Forget it, this is a clear speed-delete candidate and I deleted it already. --Zero 13:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seemed more like "move to wiktionary" to me Kappa 16:18, 6 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Tolkien depot

Advertisement for a non-notable commercial site. -- Zarquon 11:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete RoySmith 16:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP not a web guide. Wyss 04:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete possible ad. --Deathphoenix 20:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent contradiction

I can find nothing to help me verify that this theory exists. There are plenty of people using the term Apparent contradiction in relation to the Bible, but no-one calling it a theory. Maybe original research. If it can be verified, it would probably be better merged into Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible in any case. David Johnson [T|C] 13:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Egil 19:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete barring a good citation for the term. Similar concepts are also found in Kaballah, but I don't think this term is established usage. Does anyone know a more correct term for the doctrine? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Wyss 04:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge and Redirect as suggested by David Johnson. --Deathphoenix 20:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 02:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons stated above. Edeans 04:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthopologist painting

I can find no record of this on Google (1 unrelated hit if you spell Anthropologist correctly) and the artist who founded it appears non-notable (doesn't have an article here and gets very few Google hits). Possible vanity. David Johnson [T|C] 13:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as deconstructionist vanity. Wyss 04:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • An artistic current founded by a painter in 2002? Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 20:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, probable vanity. Megan1967 02:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Looks like a piece of homework set by a teacher. We already have good information in Acid, Base (chemistry), Litmus test etc. David Johnson [T|C] 14:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. RoySmith 15:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've found some articles probably the ones mentioned that need work (formatting, rephrasing). Merge the salvagable then delete. Mgm|(talk) 20:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to pH. — Ливай | ☺ 22:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge first, Delete as a fork. Wyss 04:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the potentially useful information. --Deathphoenix 20:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any useable information to pH, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & Del. (i.e., merge anything that would improve existing articles). Inferior fork. --Jerzy(t) 06:45, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] CPU monthly

Curious title, possibly original research, incorrect about Moore's Law, various other flaws. See also Talk:CPU monthly. Alfio 15:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Little value as is. (Perhaps with a significantly longer timeframe and corrections it would provide useful information, in that case Merge) Egil 19:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a monthly magazine called CPU... for computing enthusiasts and hobbyiests, perhaps this should be given a low level format. 132.205.45.110 21:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unhelpful for lack of context and dubious content. Wyss 04:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David sherman

  • Probably vanity and non-notable. He is not even the most notable David sherman in South Africa. Rmhermen 16:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 03:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:14, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. I'm famous for rendering people unconscious with sarcasm. I call it the "Sarcasminator". Maybe I should write an article about that. --Deathphoenix 20:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Forbes

Vanity. --fvw* 18:11, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete, unsuccessful attempt at humour.-gadfium 19:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, despite two Black Belt wikilinks. Egil 19:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OneGuy 20:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity plus fiction, could be a speedy. Wyss 03:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Please take an eye on black belt to revert edits there by the author of this fiction. jni 07:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A good example of bullshit as so very kindly pointed out by jni --217.42.104.35 16:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Usefull, accurate and up-to-date, cheers mate - Unsigned comment from 81.154.133.134
  • Delete vanity. Funny, but more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 20:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Josh Cherry 15:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A vital chapter of Cumbrian history. --66.249.64.36 17:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) - vote from 62.254.64.13, fake signature added by 62.254.64.12, author of the article
  • Keep --81.155.222.222 11:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Yuckfoo 04:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep not notable but funny and someone has obviously taken time to contribute to this site --81.152.252.95 16:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete; also, kill the sockpuppets. Dunc|☺ 20:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep i use wiki for college assignments, but it was nice to see something that cheered me up whilst i work sock puppets seemed ok, too kinda pointless but very informative --217.42.104.56 17:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 20:25, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and take the talking hosiery with it. - Lucky 6.9 21:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If verified, notable. Salazar 21:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lame nonsense. Gamaliel 22:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: 81.154.133.134, 81.155.222.222, 62.254.64.13, 81.152.252.95, 217.42.104.56 all originate from the same service provider as 62.254.64.12, author of the article. Gamaliel 22:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This guy seems to be Lord of the Sockpuppets. Carrp 00:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Not very notable, did some doctoral work that got a little press attention, but nothing meriting a bio here. --fvw* 18:15, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • KeepI just moved this page to where it is, as it was sharing a page with David Hanson (MP)'s biog which I thought deserved its own page. I had to create a disambiguation David Hanson page for it, but didn't really know if it was relevant. Having altered links to the page, I saw that there are a few pages that link to it, chronicling some detailed research, so it is relevant in some respect.81.153.212.124 18:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Developing one of the world's most advanced robot heads is fairly notable in my opinion, and his work has been covered internationally (there's a BBC article about it). - Starblind 19:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that the bbc tech/sci news department do a lot of these fluff pieces, many of them about interesting or fun but (in my opinion) non-notable subjects. And the "most advanced robot head" claim from the article is nonsense ofcourse, this is merely (one of) the most realistic imitations of a human head. --fvw* 19:51, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
      • And or course that always comes down to the individual's opinion of what notability, uh, denotes. And I don't intend to say that mine is correct or yours is incorrect. But it remains that Hanson is a pioneer in a very small field of research, whose work has attracted acclaim and attention on a global scale, which by itself puts him well above probably a good half of single-person Wikipedia articles. Starblind 20:10, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's in USA Today and the BBC and he's a leader in his field. This passes my notability test by a comfortable margin. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As others said. Paranoid 20:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, borderline notability, needs expansion. Megan1967 01:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems no notability to me Ejrrjs | What? 02:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's notable enough to be featured in various publications. --Deathphoenix 21:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable by any fair measure... Salazar 02:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly looks notable to me. Raven42 14:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

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 delete, apparently as a speedy at 18:53, 8 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

[edit] Geefa the Conqueror

Nonsense. --fvw* 18:25, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 19:38, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Egil 19:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Scarier than Nostradamus' predictions, but still nonsense. Starblind 20:30, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC).
  • Speedy Delete as fiction, encyclopedic noise, patent nonsense. Wyss 03:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research (research to be used loosely). --Deathphoenix 21:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable original fiction. Megan1967 02:13, 8 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 on 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 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 delete, apparently as a speedy at 18:55, 8 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

[edit] BCZ

Non-notable-site spam. --fvw* 18:32, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed. Egil 19:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Eisnel 01:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this spam in a can. Wyss 03:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. Should be speedied. Xezbeth 06:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity ad to the n-th degree. --Deathphoenix 21:04, 7 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 on 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 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 delete, apparently as a speedy at 18:56, 8 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

[edit] Bracic

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 18:32, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed. Egil 19:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Starblind 20:11, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as probable vanity. Wyss 03:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 21:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 02:11, 8 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
Low This article has been rated as low-Importance within Schools.
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
Georgia (U.S. state) Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] George Walton Academy

from VfD:

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 18:33, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Not notable. Egil 19:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Has potential. Gcs584 00:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think all school articles should be kept. Deleting them seems to me to reflect a failure to appreciate the magnitude of the information resource that Wikipedia can become. Philip 02:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, high schools are inherently notable, this is helpful. Wyss 03:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Educational institutions are inherently noteworthy. (Local coffee shops are not.) GRider\talk 19:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's tantamount to trolling to list high schools and the lister did not give a reason that has any backing from the deletion policy.Dr Zen 06:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are inherently notable. It's also a decent stub and has potential to be expanded into an article. --Andylkl 13:35, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 06:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 04:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Salazar 02:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User joined Jan 9 2005.
  • Delete. Nothing is inherently notable. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:11, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree with that 100%, countries, changes in the politcal scene, events, incidents and/or disasters on the international level are definitely noticably inherently notably notable. Some might not see schools as inherently notable, but they are in reality. --Andylkl 06:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Better than the average school article. Trilobite (Talk) 07:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 22:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The vast majority of schools are not notable. The article doesn't convince me that this one is any different. Carrp 00:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - SimonP 02:16, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Barney himpo

Probable hoax, I can't find anything on him. --fvw* 18:42, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete. What's with these non-existent boxers all of a sudden? 23skidoo 22:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism, hoax. Wyss 03:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete probable vandalism. --Deathphoenix 21:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, probable hoax. Megan1967 02:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a good sign when only google links are from this site. bernlin2000 ∞ 23:35, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a hoax. Carrp 00:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolph Nurcey

Probable hoax, I can't verify any of this information. --fvw* 18:50, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Delete. I admire the creativity behind this, but still ... 23skidoo 22:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as hoax, silly vandalism. Wyss 03:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-existent boxer. --Deathphoenix 00:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, probable hoax. Megan1967 02:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Davis

Probable hoax. --fvw* 18:52, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

  • Aww, c'mon, he's not just a boxer, he's a "very physically built" boxer. You know, as opposed to the other kind. Delete - Starblind 20:16, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • He could be a metaphysically built boxer. It makes it hard to hold the wrench, but hey, if it works… --fvw* 20:28, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Delete 23skidoo 22:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as hoax, silly vandalism. Wyss 03:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-existent rival boxer of a non-existent boxer. --Deathphoenix 00:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, probable hoax. Megan1967 02:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua DePalloc

Another hoax. --fvw* 19:19, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Someone out there is trying to create his own universe, obviously. Delete 23skidoo 03:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism, hoax. Wyss 03:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-existent actor who's not even on IMDB. --Deathphoenix 00:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revengeance

Is this a made-up word? Deb 19:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- If it is a real word then it belongs in Wiktionary, not here. DCEdwards1966 20:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research dicdef. DreamGuy 21:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity neologism. Wyss 03:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:12, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons as DCEdwards1966. --Deathphoenix 00:42, 8 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 delete, apparently as a speedy at 17:58, 9 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality

[edit] How to Choose a Birthday Gift for January

non-encyclopedic; appears to be an ad as well (these gifts and more can be purchased at...} DCEdwards1966 20:04, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Cut and paste from http://www.ehow.com/how_5577_choose-birthday-gift.html with a URL tacked on. Spam at best, copyright infringement (and spam) at worst. Starblind 20:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Starblind K1Bond007 21:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, preferable speedily. Copyvio spam. I took out the url. Kappa 23:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • comment it's my birthday in January! Dunc|☺ 00:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for the copyvio spam, even so WP's not a "how to" guide. Wyss 03:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete copyright violation, spam, how-to guide, and a partridge in a pear tree. --Deathphoenix 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 02:08, 8 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Noctopthalmophobia

Google shows 0 hits for this "term" DCEdwards1966 20:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Neologism. The correct spelling would be "nyctophthalmophobia", if I'm not mistaken (no, that doesn't Google either). Note that "ophthalmophobia" (the fear of being stared at) is real. No doubt there's a specific variant that only gives you the heebie jeebies at night, but this doesn't even get close to triskaidekaphobia in the interesting phobias department. JRM 20:25, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above. Since it doesn't exist, might warrant speedy delete under disruption/hoax theory. DreamGuy 21:11, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an original classification. Wyss 03:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' a non-existent term. --Deathphoenix 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clementine Kruczynski (Drink)

A vanity cocktail. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity, article provides no evidence of notability or interest. Wyss 03:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity article that would belong in the WikiCookbook anyway. --Deathphoenix 00:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Save, transfer to the wikicookbooks

[edit] Paderliga

Google shows 19 hits, all in German, so I can't verify any of the information. It is, presumably non-notable though. DCEdwards1966 20:16, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, ad for a blog. Wyss 03:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Xezbeth 06:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' vanity article. --Deathphoenix 00:59, 8 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 merge. Article has been merged with Infantilism and is now a redirect. Joyous 16:58, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TeenBaby

I don't know if this term is used in reference to Infantilism or not, but it doesn't need its own article. Anything useful can be moved to Infantilism. DCEdwards1966 20:23, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Might be something worth merging there, and then delete. --fvw* 20:28, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable into Infantilism, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Infantilism and redirect. Popefelix 20:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing there that can't be assumed from the adult versions, so a simple delete. hfool/Roast me 02:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, or if nothing useful (doesn't look like it...): Delete. bernlin2000 ∞ 23:43, Jan 11, 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 on 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 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 merge. Article has been merged with Infantilism and is now a redirect. Joyous 17:00, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adult baby

same as TeenBaby above DCEdwards1966 20:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Might be something worth merging there, and then redirect. --fvw* 20:29, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Redirect to infantilism. Common usage. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable into Infantilism, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to infantilism. Popefelix 20:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, since it has the correct space, and, for completeness, Teen baby is now a redirect. hfool/Roast me 02:51, 9 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 on 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 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 merge. Joyous 17:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quake 3 bots

Seems too excessive to even merge into the main Q3 article. Orphaned list, links to nothing. Xezbeth 20:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge, there are links in the list that actually go to pages on these bots. See Anarki. Probably doesn't need its own page though. K1Bond007 21:22, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove all non-articled links and Merge with Quake 3, then add redirect. Megan1967 02:01, 8 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Brittany smart

I admit I don't know much about this sport, but I would be dubious as to whether the subject is notable even if it were at the correct title. Deb 20:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are a million other half-decent university basketball players out there. Nothing apparently special about this one. Title needs capitalization fixing, too. 23skidoo 22:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Wyss 03:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Deathphoenix 02:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emmanuel Killo

Probable hoax. No Google hits and this page is interlinked with the Rudolph Nurcey VfD candidate above. 23skidoo 20:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN K1Bond007 21:23, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as hoax, silly vandalism. Wyss 03:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-existent trainer of a non-existent boxer. --Deathphoenix 02:15, 11 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 Delete. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peculiarities of Ohio place names

Delete--I re-created this article as a stub after following a dead link in the main wiki article on Ohio. I didn't realize that it was a previously-existing article that had been deleted (I'll check next time). My stub isn't worthwile by itself, and if the original didn't get edited to a worthy state, mine won't be either. --Pqdave 20:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peculiarities of Ohio place names. The next two votes were accidentally appended to the preceding discussion rather than entered in this new discussion thread.

    • Except that--as PedanticallySpeaking has already linked--there already exist Wikipedia articles on both of these potentially confusing place names. Most useful would be links to the county article in each city article (and vice versa). Someone looking for Warren County, Ohio isn't going to discover Peculiarities of Ohio place names--they will stumble across Warren, Ohio. Merge into appropriate city and county articles, or very weak Merge into Ohio. --TenOfAllTrades 21:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Nodnod. Though I wouldn't call it a merge. I would consider it a WikiProject -- confusing place name disambiguation linking. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:53, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pqdave's request. He is the sole contributor to this incarnation of the article so far. Rossami (talk) 03:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not useful. Megan1967 01:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, useful, and requested by user (if the new policy were to be upheld, this would be a speedy delete, non?). --Deathphoenix 02:18, 11 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] From the article's Talk page

It isn't really unexpected or peculiar for pronounciations of foreign place names to change when they are adopted in other languages - in fact, it's practially the norm. The nation is full of cities/towns with French, Spanish and German names that are pronounced "wrong" ... as for American Indian names, they're butchered all over the place. The same thing happens in reverse, with English words adopted in foreign-language countries. So I think much of the basis of this article is short-sighted. But maybe that's just me. - DavidWBrooks 18:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, not short-sighted, but perhaps inadequately described. I don't disagree with your main point, but it is the case that when referring to Ohio cities, the names are often inadvertently mispronounced because of it. Yeah, it happens all the time and it is a natural result of adopting words from other languages, but it seems to me that it's worth noting what the actual differences are. Acsenray 19:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have long felt that Ohio is particularly prone to this sort of oddity, but in reality it's probably not any worse than any other state. More appropriate, perhaps, would be to have similar lists for all states (and, hey, other countries) or at least not to imply in this article that Ohio is unique in this regard. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This was originally an empty link. Not sure what the original link creater had in mind, so I created a stub, obviously biased by my location...--Pqdave 19:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original article was deleted after being listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peculiarities of Ohio place names for the voting. older≠wiser 19:39, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Notability enough to be listed in an encyclopedia has not been established by the article and seems unlikely to be able to be established based upon the information there. Sounds like a not-particularly-noteworthy garage band. DreamGuy 21:04, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 03:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, sorry for wasting your time with this. I can see why it's not notable for Wikipedia, though they are MY favorite band at the moment. I'll come back when they've released their debut album and sold millions, ok? - original poster
    • Good thinking, original poster. Kappa 11:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest instead that this should redirect to Aloysius Gonzaga. Smerdis of Tlön 20:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea, but what about when the band releases their debut album and sells millions? I suppose we'd need to disambiguate it. Oh well, worry about that later, redirect for now. --Deathphoenix 02:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As all first names have their own page, so should this. I could write the info on the origin of the name, if needed. Muarae 13:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Lee Joo Hyung

Article makes no claim of notability. Thue | talk 21:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn, almost a speedy for lack of context and little content. Wyss 03:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 02:25, 11 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 delete, apparently as a speedy. Deletion log shows:

  • 17:53, 7 Jan 2005 Wile E. Heresiarch deleted ZZZ (speed delete: silly vandalism and patent nonsense)
  • 20:59, 6 Jan 2005 Rfl restored "ZZZ"
  • 02:48, 5 Jan 2005 Rfl deleted ZZZ (moved to WP:-) - was: "(nonsense template) Zanzibar zealous zygote ...")
  • 14:53, 4 Jan 2005 Rmhermen deleted ZZZ (content was: '(nonsense template) Zanzibar zealous zygote')

[edit] ZZZ

I am unable to verify any of the information in this article. Looks like a hoax to me. — Ливай | ☺ 21:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I concur. Delete. I found several Winston Gopaul's on Google, but none that fit this description. Reads almost like a non sequitor. 23skidoo 00:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • del. hoax. Mikkalai 01:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • To verify the information in this article one only has to search Google for "Hulmut Unger" ZZZ. Not surprisingly, it returns nothing and suggests: Did you mean: "Helmut Unger" ZZZ—which also returns nothing. This article has already been deleted twice: Rmhermen deleted it on January 4, and I deleted it on January 5. This were both speedy deletions when the article was marked as patent nonsense. See the article’s history and its deletion log (the most recent entry—Rfl restored "ZZZ"—means that I have just restored the revision history of previous deleted versions). The copy of this article is now included in Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, as I have already written on January 5 in Talk:ZZZ. This article was written by 66.184.196.138 whose only contributions to Wikipedia were reposting the ZZZ article [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], removing the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion notice [10], and posting the comment “I remember hearing about this in college in 1978. I am going to check through some old notebooks before I can pass judgement on this being nonsense. GoPaul and the Gerbelate were familiar however.” on Talk:ZZZ [11] (for the record, Google doesn’t know anything about Gerbelate). If you think that it is not patent nonsense and its deletion should be subject to voting—in which case you might want to remove it from WP:BJAODN—then my vote is Delete. Rafał Pocztarski 01:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I tagged this as a speedy when it said only "Z.Z.Z. Zanzibar Zealous Zygote" but the author evidently thought it worthwhile to expand it and remove the tag. It's highly unlikely there were any such 'indigenous tribes' in Zanzibar because it's actually quite a small island, and because of a fairly strategic position it was colonised very early (1503). Nothing in this article checks out. Delete and chuckle. Dbiv 03:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete delete as vandalism/hoax (gerbelate? ...how obvious can this be?). Wyss 03:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Snoring just because it'd be funny. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense. Speedy delete.Martg76 15:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted as silly vandalism and patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Cyrius. Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:30, 10 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 on 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 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] Norman Weiss

This article was voted for deletion once before, and the decision was made to keep it. As a historian, I spent great effort in attempting to clarify the innuendo and to flush out this entry. Nothing exists. The only pertinent information is this: Weiss and Epstein worked together on the Beatles American tours. That doesn't even need to be merged into the Beatles article; a simple edit will do, since it's a one-liner under the "history" section. Everything else in the Weiss entry are "weaselisms." Weiss may well be remembered by industry insiders; but does that constitute POV or fact? Check all the websites; his name isn't mentioned in either the Turtles or Tom Jones.

That it is well-written (thank you very much) does not preclude that this is NOT weaselism and therefore, does not belong in Wikipedia. I don't think authors often ask that their article entry be deleted. After a great deal of time and serious effort, I am reluctant, but adamant: there is nothing informative here. Nor is it likely that anyone can dig up anything substantive.

He existed. His contribution was important, but only in its proper context. allie 21:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep -- Jmabel | Talk 23:55, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, borderline notability. Megan1967 01:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn business exec who was in right place at the right time and didn't do anything interesting or notable about it. Wyss 03:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Week keep. Encyclopedic, I guess. Don't see anything too wrong with the article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep and allow for POV issues to be addressed. GRider\talk 18:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 23:20, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. hfool/Roast me 02:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Marginally notable. --JuntungWu 06:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable out of context. Orphan, so no one will find it. Niteowlneils 20:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 04:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Though marginally notable, he's notable enough to be kept. --Deathphoenix 02:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough... Salazar 02:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User joined Jan 9 2005.
  • Delete, nn, removing POV reduces the article to nothing. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:10, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Very marginally notable, but notable nonetheless. bernlin2000 ∞ 22:52, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable and little hope for expansion. Carrp 00:12, 12 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] Geoff bone

Besides the bad capitalization and the really ugly article, this is a non-notable charity worker. RickK 22:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, probably vanity, definitely unencyclopedic. — Ливай | ☺ 22:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, possible vanity. Wyss 03:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. not-notable, looked on google. not much. Miffed 23:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreed, not much on Google. The external link came up blank as well. --Deathphoenix 02:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Batkin

Little known slang started by a "group of teens". Make that a delete. --BesigedB (talk) 22:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, i didn't mean to blank this page.

  • Delete. Little know slang doesn't belong in a dictionary. - Jeltz talk 23:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Much less an encyclopedia. Delete. — Ливай | ☺ 09:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 03:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense. Speedy delete.Martg76 15:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. Gamaliel 01:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this non-notable, batkin article.--Deathphoenix 02:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corporal James Orourke

More vanity from 62.254.64.12 (Put up for deletion by OneGuy)

Delete. Incoherent gabble. I couldn't establish notability with Google. At very least it needs cleanup. Grox 01:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete I don't think there's any chance of establishing notabilty. He was a corporal and the military medal is not one of the highest British military decorations. Philip 02:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikisource, then Delete, nn. Wyss 03:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete OneGuy 07:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Probably written by the good corporal's grandchild. --Deathphoenix 02:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PhysiqueduSolide

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

  • Looks French... and almost like a cut&paste from a physics textbook ("Chapitre I - Introduction"), though Googling didn't turn up any matches. From an unregistered user with 1 edit. 68.81.231.127 11:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's about solid-state physics and looks like a copy & paste from something else. Judging by the random code, I'd say it was a computer file of some sort but I don't know what kind. It's also annoyingly lacking in diacritics. If it's not a copyvio I could perhaps add them and transwiki it into the substub fr:Physique du solide. Ливай | ☺ 19:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • French, textbook, accents got lost. Probable copyvio, too. And the title is in French and no spaces. Lupo 12:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<end moved text>

  • Given the above, and given that it's now sat there for 2 weeks with no one bothering to take it any further (e.g. to translate), I say the simplest thing to do i delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that deleting this would be better than translating the possible copyvio, doing major format cleanup, and merging it with the various articles related to solid-state physics, which already discuss the topic more clearly and elegantly, especially for the layperson who only wants a cursory knowledge of the topic or is just beginning to study it. This article dives into a flurry of mathematical symbols by the second paragraph and is littered with unexplained jargon. — Ливай | ☺ 00:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it as a fork. Wyss 03:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless to us in this state and a french duplication of covered subjects. hfool/Roast me 02:55, 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 delete, apparently as a speedy at 22:18, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Dpbsmith who wrote Requested by sole author. Author did not understand Move function. Duplicates content of LexiconRPG. Prior to author's request, listed on VfD, 4 Deletes including author, 0 Keeps.

[edit] LexiconGame

User Ben Wilson's attempt to fork the LexiconRPG article which is listed for VfD above. RickK 23:34, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all forks used to get around VfDs. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the fork. Wyss 03:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete IAW outcome of LexiconRPG. I wasn't trying to circumvent, but to rename since LexiconRPG is not the proper name. --BenWilson 20:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • The way to do this is with a Move. Although this could be done while the VfD is in process, there are so many ways this could cause confusion that it's better to wait and see whether it survives. For now, BenWilson should place a note on Talk:LexiconRPG saying that if it survives VfD he intends to move it to LexiconGame and explain why. The sole editor (except for the VfD nominator) has requested deletion of LexiconGame. It is essentially duplicate content from LexiconRPG so deleting it loses nothing important. It would have to be deleted to permit LexiconRPG to be moved later. For these reasons, I have deleted it now. If anyone wants it restored, just let me know. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 8 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Ernestolynch

A guy who posts on a bulletin board. Delete, even if he is "a charming bastard". --Stormie 23:37, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete but somebody should start a Charmingbastardclopedia. Starblind 00:19, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, platform for a link, ad, almost a speedy. Wyss 03:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense - this guy represents more than a poster - it's a social movement amongst anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist protestors in the UK.

  • Delete. Non-notable. Warofdreams 11:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this charming, Celtic bastard. --Deathphoenix 02:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, but do not delete the person :) 129.177.61.124 12:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Factions within the United States Democratic Party

Either a copyvio (though I can't find the original), or somebody's thesis. RickK 23:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, this is an essay, smacks too much of a fork with original research. Wyss 03:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 01:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Concur with Wyss and Megan1967. Edeans 04:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, crap. Neutralitytalk 04:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. --Deathphoenix 02:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From VfD

Article does not establish notability. RickK 23:55, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Article does not establish credibility. Looks like it is a new rumor spreading at various wiccan forums by posters known only by their avatars without solid references. Mikkalai 01:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The same anon also propagates this in Wiccan Rede and Adriana Porter. If all this turns out to be true, both Lady Gwynne and Adriana Porter may be safely folded into Wiccan Rede. Mikkalai 01:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's true enough, and helpful. Wyss 03:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 04:07, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Mistitled (unless her name was "Lady"). If you keep it, move it. Gdr 23:34, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, interesting and notable - checks google many reference Miffed 23:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • What makes her notable? She's a publisher of ONE poem? RickK 23:19, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs expansion though. Megan1967 01:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merging the info as a couple of words in Wiccan Rede obviates this entry entirely.
  • Delete. 91 hits, and the first is for a company in New South Wales. If verified, merge her and Adriana Porter into Wiccan Rede. Niteowlneils 20:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 04:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep she fameous. Witches lerv her. Salazar 02:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User joined Jan 9 2005.
  • Delete, or merge and redirect if there isn't consensus to delete. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very marginal keep. GRider\talk 22:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability, even if this stuff is true. Publishing one obscure poem doesn't make you notable. Gamaliel 23:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Liquid Democracy (vote for undeletion)

See Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Liquid Democracy. Which would be fine advice if that existed. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)