Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 January 8 1.1 Stand on the rain.jpg 1.2 Harvey Smith (video game designer) 1.3 Christina Wodtke 1.4 Fart physics 1.5 Nicholi Jahghof 1.6 Divels foot 1.7 Vivicicism 1.7.1 Tally 1.8 Top ten list of theme parks 1.9 FoolFind 1.10 For Randy Entertainment 1.11 The Dan Rice 1.12 Foresight quotient 1.13 Swartika 1.14 Justin Stewart 1.15 The Cat With The Fat 1.16 Jonathan Callahan 1.17 Cobaye Molotov 1.17.1 Tally 1.18 Christopher McGilton 1.19 SouthMUN 1.20 Brunswick cartoon 1.21 Gulf Services Company 1.22 Berom 1.23 MP3Search.Ru 1.24 Turdsmania 1.25 Howard and Grazer 1.26 Phi Phi island verwüstet 1.27 Eastside District 1.28 Diadem (physics) 1.29 Indonesian 1998 Revolution - Fall of Suharto 1.30 Arts and crafts resources 1.31 Bangkok Declaration 1.32 Skultamaphon 2 VfD 2.1 List of liberal cities 2.2 List of conservative cities 2.3 Hanna jubran 2.4 /echo 2.5 JC

[edit] January 8

[edit] Stand on the rain.jpg

I created this image long ago before I clearly understood what is wikipedia for. It's useless. If you wonder why I created in the first place, i can link you to my website where there is a final version.

--Alexandre Van de Sande 12:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion ;) Plop 14:31, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fart physics

Perhaps part of this could be merged into a fluid and gas dynamics article, but apart from that I don't think this is at risk of becoming encyclopaedic. --fvw* 01:11, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

• Delete, not even funny enough for BJAODN. — Ливай | ☺ 02:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neither funny nor encyclopedic. Rje 02:44, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, prank, vanity, not funny. Somebody in the WWW 02:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Peee-yew, this article stinks. Ha ha ha. Or should I call it a farticle? Ha ha ha. Redirect to 1601 (Mark Twain). Ha ha ha. (Prank, not encyclopedic). Dpbsmith (talk) 03:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Other than it being a bad-joke it's arguement also has many fatal flaws which are not worth exposing or humouring. Greaser 06:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Probably nothing to merge, but if someone wants to, feel free. Tuf-Kat 02:31, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) (oops, I failed at signing, but this was my vote)
• Delete Simply stupid. CiaraBeth 17:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I already speedy deleted this once. Delete. RickK 00:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are a few funny fart jokes out there. This is not one of them. Edeans 08:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a verifiable encyclopedic fact that the last funny fart joke was made in 1880.
• Delete as a pointless bad joke. Thryduulf 23:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vandalism, unless someone's going to endow a chair. Cleduc 08:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pardon me if I don't laugh. --Deathphoenix 05:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The person who wrote this should delete it... remember the rolling down the window example? Pedant 06:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, What the...? Riffsyphon1024 21:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholi Jahghof

Obvious hoax. --fvw* 01:22, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

• Delete. Somebody in the WWW 02:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 02:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete hoax. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily deleted Author admitted it was a hoax, making this a CSD#3. SWAdair | Talk 10:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

(if deleted, should also delete the redirects smb.conf and Samba Configuration) Without wanting to open the old debate about how-tos, this article basically consists of an example configuration file, and a note that the Samba website has better documentation. I see we leave it to them to document their config file, and stick to being an encyclopedia. - IMSoP 02:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not for howtos, not encyclopedic. Somebody in the WWW 02:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Manual pages do not belong on Wikipedia. Josh Cherry 14:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I've merged some material into Samba software. I'd personally be tempted to do a merge and redirect without any need for VFD process. It seems not a bad idea to have smb.conf redirected to Samba software if only in order to stop people from re-creating it. Mozzerati 15:49, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Delete, redirects in this case might be a good idea. Wyss 18:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Samba software. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 03:57, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Cleduc 09:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Samba software. --Zappaz 03:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Chealer 18:24, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Divels foot

Website promo, and to make things worse I can't even verify such a site exists (the link doesn't work). — Ливай | ☺ 02:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --fvw* 02:34, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Rje 02:46, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. 郵便箱 02:55, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The site does exist. It is at www.divelsfoot.com, not Divelsfoot.com. --Zarquon 10:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently speedy deleted at 18:49, 8 Jan 2005 by User:Neutrality who gave no reason. I do not believe it meets any of the current specific criteria for speedy deletion and have temporarily restored it in order to allow the VfD discussion to finish. Rossami (talk) 05:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, almost a speedy, but not quite. Wyss 02:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Cleduc 08:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad, spam, spam, ad. --Deathphoenix 05:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia.com is a sort of a strict "we prefer to remain an encyclopedia" sort of community Pedant
  • Comment left by anonymous user User:66.245.209.124. Please log in under a username before voting. — Ливай | ☺ 07:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vivicicism

Attempt at a hoax I assume. --fvw* 02:40, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

• Delete, and don't forget the talk page. Neutrality^talk 02:40, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Somebody in the WWW 02:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, probable hoax. Megan1967 02:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Um actually this is not a hoax. Search for Vivicicism,or even Vivicism (tends to be mispelled this way) I tried to not make it obvious and to keep it nuetral but this is my religion. I am sick of peple continuely asking about it and i felt that making it more promenent would make it better for me. If you want to farther talk to me email me at mailto:LordOfDays@yahoo.com Thanks for your support Dan Bell ...comment added at 03:36, 2005 Jan 8 by 66.216.162.112 within VfD/Central Casting
• Google has zero hits for either "vivicicism" or "vivicism". Not notable (to put it mildly). 66.216.162.112 seems to want to publicize it; he's free to do so on his own website. Delete -- Hoary 04:19, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 05:38, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It sounds as though "vivicicism" is plagerism of athiesm or nihilism. - Greaser 06:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article was speedy deleted as a hoax. Hoaxes are not speedy delete candidates. I have restored it to allow the VfD discussion to finish. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless a reference is found to back this up before the end of the vfd period. DJ Clayworth 05:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No doubt this is someone trying to see how gullible we all are. The only google hits are for the wikipedia entry and this "VfD" page. No hits on altavista. Probably a religion he's made up. He gives an email address. He needs to get out there and recruit a cult following, and THEN open a wikipedia page. --Rexrexilius 09:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You didn't say this to Sollog a few months back did you? DJ Clayworth 05:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as silly vandalism, a rambling prank. Wyss 02:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete possible scam. --Deathphoenix 05:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Slangdef --fvw* 02:45, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to stereotype. Keep as rewritten. Dbiv 03:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Is there any evidence of notability? I found very few examples of this on Google. If not, Delete. Apparently there is more notability than I had thought. Keep. — Asbestos | Talk 11:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Modified article. There's plenty of evidence of notability. (Even I have heard, and been confused by, the term.) I've added some of it to the article, replacing the original author's made-up examples with some real ones. The existence of the (probably deliberately) confusingly named real companies makes this slightly more than a simple dictionary definition too, I think. Keep Uncle G 14:33, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Keep. This is always a confusing phrase first time you meet it, so it belongs here. Quasi-dictionary, but I think we can do more with it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The improvements are good, but I'm still not convinced it can be anything but a definition. Transwiki to wiktionary would be best, though I remain open to the possibility of encyclopedifying. Tuf-Kat 19:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef RoySmith 20:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 21:40, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite. RickK 00:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I had the thought of soft redirect to Wiktionary if it can't be kept with rewrite. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 03:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Much better but it's still a discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of the phrase. m:Transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 05:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Edeans 08:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. And expand if you can. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 09:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Cleduc 09:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Definate keep Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Wiktionary. Not really encyclopedic. --Deathphoenix 15:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep just as encyclopedic as Blue plate special just not as complete. 66.245.209.124 06:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)User:Pedant
  • [This troubling entry, which the history & diffs indicate is the result of a single edit, is not consistent with a belated sig. (If Pedant can't log on at present, this may be innocent (however clumsily labelled) but to my knowledge that has not been reported as among the current peculiarities.) Link to Pedant struck thru as confusing, and possible inept forgery, pending explanation. --Jerzy(t) 17:57, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)]]
• Keep - David Gerard 19:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tally

As of 17:57, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

• Del
  1. fvw* 02:45, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  2. RoySmith 20:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (Presumably qualified votes)
  1. Dbiv 03:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. — Asbestos | Talk 11:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Uncle G 14:33, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  4. Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 03:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) (with rewrite. Or soft redirect to Wiktionary.)
  6. Sean Curtin 21:40, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  7. RickK 00:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 09:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Strong)
  9. Megan1967 00:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Weak)
  10. Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) ("Definate")
  11. David Gerard 19:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (Anon/IP)
  1. 66.245.209.124 06:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki (explicitly or implicitly to Wiktionary)
  1. Tuf-Kat 19:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rossami (talk) 05:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Edeans 08:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Cleduc 09:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Deathphoenix 15:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Top ten list of theme parks

Ostensibly a list of the ten most popular theme parks in Britain, as compiled by an unnamed student in an unnamed university. The numbers make the whole thing look fictional. If it isn't fictional (if there are just mistakes that could be corrected), it's pretty meaningless without more details of the survey. Even if it were meaningful it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. (Incidentally, other recent contributions by the same IP number have been less than stellar.) -- Hoary 04:01, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

[edit] FoolFind

Advertising and non-notable. --foobaz·✐ 04:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For Randy Entertainment

Vanity page. --foobaz·✐ 04:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Not-notable. And won't become more notable, since the group has already packed it in, or so I learn from its website (to which a link was thoughtfully provided). Delete. -- Hoary 05:37, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Delete - Thryduulf 23:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, probable vanity. Megan1967 00:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline vanity ad, tribute. Wyss 01:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable ad. --Deathphoenix 15:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dan Rice

Whimsy about a student who (unless you subscribe to the whimsy) seems non-notable. Hoary 05:09, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

• Delete this whimsical vanity page. --foobaz·✐ 05:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Time for The Dan Rice to get The Deep Six. Edeans 08:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity. Megan1967 00:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as silly vandalism, prank. Wyss 01:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fiction. Cleduc 09:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity more suitable for a user page. --Deathphoenix 15:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vandalistic vanity, fiction prank. Shagmaestro 10:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foresight quotient

Doesn't show any significant google hits, looks like either advertising, original research, or just nonsense. --foobaz·✐ 05:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject of human foresight is an important one, however this article seems to represent original research wiht no peer-review and a possible stealth ad. Wyss 01:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The man appears to be significant, but the specific idea (Foresight quotient) has apparently not (yet) caught on. Maybe the article is premature. -Rholton 03:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	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:

Current article is 13 words long. It's apparently a street of old houses in Oslo. Unless this can substantially be expanded (or at leasdt shown to be notable), I don't really see the point of it here. Grutness|^hello? 05:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. Keep it and ask for it to be expanded. Dr Zen 06:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Notability not established. BTW, where is the vfd tag? DCEdwards1966 07:02, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm getting annoyed at these damned editing problems. You put a tag on something,and then it vanishes from the article and the edit history. I should have checked - it took me three goes to start this vfd page (which I got to from the tag!) Grutness|^hello?
• This article is of no real value in its original form, and can be deleted. But Damstredet is in fact an interesting little street, and I notice it is mentioned in Yahoo Travel as one 'thing to do in Oslo' [1]. I've added some more information, including the Henrik Wergeland connection. Egil
• It looks like some life has been stirred into the article by the listing here (that often happens :) - I think there's enough there now to start being swayed in favour of a "keep" Grutness|^hello? 09:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you should never have listed it! Being a stub simply isn't a criterion for deletion.Dr Zen 01:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • But being a pointless stub is a valid criterion. ping 08:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I listed for the reasons I gave. It was a substub - 13 words saying it was a street of old houses. Is Wikipedia to be a repository for 13-word articles for the 10,000,000 un-noteworthy streets of old houses on the planet? As I said in my original message, it needed one of two things done to it: expansion or deletion. I am glad it has been expanded, but if it was not, I would have had no qualms about its deletion. Grutness|^hello? 09:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Being a substub is not a reason for exclusion.Dr Zen 22:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Being a substub about a completely un-noteworthy street should be. There was no way of saying that this was not a vanity article about someone's home street. Grutness|^hello? 04:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The simplest of google searches would reveal that it's an Oslo tourist attraction.Dr Zen 06:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's an Oslo tourist attraction then I would expect it to be mentioned on the Oslo page. If it's worth an article, I would have expected an article to have been written. It obviously wasn't a big enough tourist attraction to have been dealt with on the Oslo page, so it certainly wasn't a big enough attraction for its own page. As the fact that there was a substub there made clear. The vfd page is meant to clear up such points. Preferably in a manner where the articles are discussed, and not whether you think a Wikipedian has done the right thing by even sugggesting a page should be looked at. If you want to complain about someone's actions, then do it on their user talk page, not here. Grutness|^hello? 22:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • No, the debate is public, not personal. If you thought it should have been included in the Oslo article, you could merge it and redirect without requiring it to be deleted. That you say "if it's an Oslo tourist attraction..." implies that you didn't bother finding out, and simply asked for it to be deleted because you personally have not heard of it. I want to discourage editors from doing that, not just you, so why would I bring it up on your talkpage and not here? The VfD is supposed to be for editors to ask whether articles should be deleted and to form a consensus. Consensus involves discussion. If you don't want your listings discussed, don't make them. If the article really does require deleting, someone who doesn't mind discussion will do the nominating at some point. We're not short of would-be deleters. Dr Zen 01:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If you thought it should have been included in the Oslo article, you could merge it - I didn't know whether it should have been, or whether it should have just been deleted. It looked like it should have been deleted. That's why I listed it here, which is the correct place to list it under those circumstances. Look, I'm as happy to allow tiny articles here as the next guy - I've voted "KeeP' on enough vfd candidates in my time. But I don't see the point of keeping an article which basically says "Damstredet is a street". I had no idea whether it was worth keeping as part of an article or as a separate article, but the evidence I suggested that it was not. I am very glad to see that I was wrong. Next time, please be more constructive by pointing out why an article should be kept, rather than being destructive by suggesting that I was wrong to list it here in the first place. Grutness|^hello? 02:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I would have listed the original article for VfD. Stubs are alright, but if they don't establish notablility then they should be deleted. DCEdwards1966 21:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Marginal keep though I'm not totally convinced that this deserves an article on its own. Perhaps it can be merged with the main article on Oslo? 23skidoo 23:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, borderline notability needs expansion. Megan1967 00:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 01:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Cleduc 09:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it in its current form. It looks like it can be expanded to become more encyclopedic. --Deathphoenix 15:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason whatsoever for the deletion of this article. Martg76 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good enough to keep. DS 16:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

from VfD:

Insignificant; merge/redirect or delete. Neutrality^talk 06:21, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• delete, Nothing mergable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, GTAcruft. Wyss 01:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete Xtra 12:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, then delete. --Deathphoenix 16:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect User:Pedant

end moved discussion

[edit] Swartika

Google only gives 11 hits. If this isn't a hoax then it needs to go to Wiktionary. DCEdwards1966 06:10, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• delete this may be a word in Martian, but this is english wikipedia[2]. Mozzerati 12:57, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a typo for "swastika", although the meaning doesn't jive. 23skidoo 23:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I've my doubts. Vanity neologism at best. Wyss 01:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable term not valid for Wiktionary inclusion. --Deathphoenix 16:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe a typo, maybe a neologism. Either way, it's not notable and should be deleted. Carrp 13:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Stewart

The youngest Power Ranger yet!!! DCEdwards1966 06:28, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with List of Power Rangers and redirect. hfool/Roast me 03:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Power Rangers, and add redirect. Megan1967 00:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • After considering this article again, I'm voting weak Keep. Could do with a cleanup and expansion though. Megan1967 02:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No need for large, cluttered articles. Andros 1337 04:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or cleanup. Fictional character for a notable show (regardless of how I feel about the show in question). --Deathphoenix 16:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio. - Vague | Rant 02:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Cat With The Fat

non-notable DCEdwards1966 06:49, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• nn, delete -- Hoary 07:35, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• No content! Delete! hfool/Roast me 03:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• No cat. No fat. No content. No article. Delete 23skidoo 06:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article, nn, WP not a data dump. Wyss 01:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Believe it or not, this is actually a piece on the latest Revue of the University of New South Wales Medicine Society (MedSoc). I remember hearing about it from some acquaintances of mine at UNSW. It's a small world. . . anyway, non-notable, unfortunately, so delete. Lacrimosus 08:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. If the above comment by Lacrimosus is true, then it's also copyvio. --Deathphoenix 16:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I've read the deletion policy and I can't find anything there that would support deleting this. Everything included is real, true and factual. Keep bambul 10:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Where's the content? Carrp 04:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cobaye Molotov

[Reformatting for clarity by Jerzy(t) 03:57, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC).]

Vanity. Neutrality^talk 07:07, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• keep: emerging band this band is starting to get recognition no google hit but that's normal, they are not a net-savy band( beside the guitar player they dont even have computeers themselves, very old school type of band in that regard but they got a blog and a message board, but their crowd is mostly street punks and poor people with non net connnection, so pretty inactive on the web keep --tb 08:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)tba03
  • They, or we? The only contributions of User:Tba03 have been to this VfD, this article, and its discussion page, where his comment was headed someone did a page on my band. I wish you well, Tba03, but you need to put out a lengthy CD (let's say forty minutes or more, and sold through conventional channels), or show evidence of vigorous activity in concerts, or some other notability. Can you point to any concert reviews in the Montréal press that are on the web? If not, or until then, it's delete. -- Hoary 10:52, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Del. They, or we? The only contributions of User:Tba03 have been to this VfD, this article, and its discussion page, where his comment was headed someone did a page on my band. I wish you well, Tba03, but you need to put out a lengthy CD (let's say forty minutes or more, and sold through conventional channels), or show evidence of vigorous activity in concerts, or some other notability. Can you point to any concert reviews in the Montréal press that are on the web? If not, or until then, it's delete. -- Hoary 10:52, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Del. "i'm a fan of this new emerging band and i'd like the world to know them thst's why i created the article..." Wait for them to emerge. Delete. --Zarquon 10:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. — Asbestos | Talk 11:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; seems too obscure to keep for now; an entire good (as judged by me) album released under a creative commons license and downloadable from one of the creative commons sites would be sufficient for me to change my vote. It doesn't have to be distributed through conventional means. Also, concert reviews wouldn't have to be on the web to be convincing. Mozzerati 12:40, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• delete Guys, wrong way. Amke a blog, publish a fotolog. Home record your songs and put them on the Archive.org. Link to them. Go to Irate, gnomoradio and tell them about you. Forget you album release and just put it all online. Then come back here when we can hear your songs.--Alexandre Van de Sande 13:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity K1Bond007 16:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• keep and i tought wikipedia was a free encyclopedia // creative commons??? // we have such a small market here // selling 5000 albums is almost a myth in quebec // anyway i see you are just elitists and want to stay between you, so...fu --67.68.229.20 05:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)tba
• keep this band is starting to get recognition no google hit but that's normal, they are not a net-savy band( beside the guitar player they dont even have computeers themselves, very old school type of band in that regard but they got a blog and a message board, but their crowd is mostly street punks and poor people with non net connnection, so pretty inactive on the web keep --67.68.229.20 06:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tba03, (i) each of us has just one vote; (ii) if you must call anybody else an elitist (or anything else), please do so on that user's talk page rather than here. -- Hoary 07:14, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
• keep I'm working at archambault, the montreal music store and i know those guys pretty well, thy are a local talent but they are against all technology(let me tell u ) they sell cd-r's and cassettes(remember those?). i'm a disc selesperson and i sell bout 7-10 of their albums a week, mostly to punks and teens, but occasionaly to older people. they desserve a mention on wikipedia for sure, hey some way more obscure bands are there as well --207.253.250.210 16:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)jens
• keep one of my coworker here told me there was a deletion request for cobaye molotov, and i think they desserve a page her especially since they dont have any other online resources(that i know of) so they will at least have one online place that talk about them, and yes they sell cd's, but just cd-r's cause they cannot afford to get prints --Archambault 16:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)julie
  • Comment: the only contributions of voter Archambault have been to this article and this vote list; the only contributions of voter Hmv montreal have been to this vote list. -- Hoary 02:21, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete until they've actually 'emerged'. Niteowlneils 22:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, still not notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 00:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no tangible evidence of shows or significant recording activity, and the naming of musical influences is usually a sign of vanity. Also, something about the anon posts here makes me think of sockpuppets. Wyss 01:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable and the sockpuppets are just icing on the cake. Indrian 07:25, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cleduc 09:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep one of montreal great garage rock band, they desserve it since they don't have any other place. and to all the deleters, if you were in montreal you wil know them, its normal that they are unknown in japan or usa, they sing in french! --Hmv montreal 18:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)alice, hmv montreal
  • Comment: the only contributions of voter Archambault have been to this article and this vote list; the only contributions of voter Hmv montreal have been to this vote list. -- Hoary 02:21, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete until article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 01:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 06:49, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete Group doesn't seem notable. Also, Tba03, 67.68.229.20, 207.253.250.210, Archambault, and Hmv montreal all seem to have mis-signed in the same fashion. -- ckape (talk) 09:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How can anyone judge a band (or their music) to be "not worth writing about" on behalf of the Internet community? Even a garage band merits a factual article in the encyklopedia. Speak for yourselves, and don't read about the band if you don't like them, but don't pretend that you have the right to decide which bands are "worthy" and which aren't! --Verdlanco (talk) 10:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • (responses to this: see the discussion page)
    • Verdlanco, please stop personal criticisms of people who choose to vote "delete" on this issue. You are attempting to pervert and interfere with the voting process.
• Delete. Only when the three of them manage to come out of the garage will they be notable. Uncle G 15:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, and the sock-puppets only add weight to this vote. --Deathphoenix 16:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Carrp 04:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article, but upload some music to archive.org and send me a link to it. I'll listen to it. It's not that we are elitists, we just don't want all those crappy unknown bands you are competing against to have articles. Pedant

[edit] Tally

Thru 07:35, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

• Del
  1. Neutrality^talk 07:07, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) (Nominator)
  2. Hoary 10:52, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  3. Zarquon 10:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. — Asbestos | Talk 11:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mozzerati 12:40, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  6. Alexandre Van de Sande 13:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. K1Bond007 16:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Niteowlneils 22:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Megan1967 00:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Wyss 01:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Indrian 07:25, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Cleduc 09:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Tuf-Kat 01:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  14. fvw* 06:49, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  15. ckape (talk) 09:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Uncle G 15:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  17. Deathphoenix 16:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Carrp 04:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Pedant

• Keep (presumably qualified voters)
  1. Verdlanco (talk) 10:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (new registered users)
  1. tb 08:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)tba03
  2. Archambault 16:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)julie
  3. Hmv montreal 18:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)alice, hmv montreal

• Keep (anon/IP)
  1. 67.68.229.20 05:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)tba (claims to be "tba", who already voted) [multi-voting attempt]
  2. 67.68.229.20 06:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) (same IP as prev entry) [multi-voting attempt]
  3. 207.253.250.210 16:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)jens

[edit] Christopher McGilton

Non-notable. 7 Google hits for "Christopher McGilton" MIDI. DCEdwards1966 07:10, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, nn. Edeans 08:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, probable vanity. Megan1967 00:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, midlife vanity. Wyss 01:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, not notable, author is okay with the delete. --Deathphoenix 16:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am the author and read the policies on auto biographies and such. Being a musician would also not categorize this as vanity. However in time my accomplishments in the field of liturgical music incorporating electronic music and MIDI may be notable so I'll leave a biography of myself to someone else if and when that may happen. The article can be deleted. Thank you.

• Comment: If you decide to stay on Wikipedia, this would be an idea article to have as your user page. --Deathphoenix 16:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SouthMUN

Blurb for an activity (and it seems a commendable one) within a single high school, and thus not notable. Hoary 07:30, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

• Delete Cdc 20:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think there's anything here that isn't already in Model United Nations, but if there is something useful, merge first. Shimeru 00:52, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, schools are generally notable, activities within them are not inherently so. Wyss 01:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Model United Nations and delete. --Deathphoenix 16:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brunswick cartoon

Non-notable comic strip. The only Google hit is to the site linked in the article. DCEdwards1966 07:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - notable cartoon in NZ context - was long-running at all the country's universities. northislander 10:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Googling 'brunswick buist' gets three references to relevant sites (besides various facets of the site linked in the article) in the first two pages of results. northislander 12:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it - There is an enormous Brunswick banner painted above the entrance of the library of Victoria University of Wellington. Anyone who travels in the main lift of this library has time to study the Brunswick collage that takes up one of the walls of the lift. I'm not sure how many university libraries in the world have a Garfield or Doonesbury motif. David Thomsen The thirteenth of January, year 2005.

• I argue against myself in the cause of justice. David Thomsen (half an hour later}

• Keep it - it is a cult icon of VUW. The reason Googling it comes up with little references is because it is refered to simply as 'Brunswick' not as 'Brunswick cartoon'. The only problem is that there are many other 'Brunswicks' on Wikipedia and thus it cannot use the title 'Brunswick'.

• Anon votes are not counted. RickK 23:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• This is why we have disambiguation. And from the Google results that I see "Brunswick" appears to be a Warner Brothers trademark of some sort (although that might be search engine manipulation on the parts of the retailers). Uncle G 18:20, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
• This may have something to do with Warner Bros. licensing the 'Looney Tunes' characters for a range of bowling gear. Mr Chinnery 11:36, Jan 14, 2005 (GMT+12)

• Keep it -It's been running for 12 years at 8 universities with a weekly readership of 100,000, 2nd longest strip cartoon in New Zealand history, has not established large web presence yet, but only been online for a year. Most people read the print version. Mr Chinnery 11:24, Jan 11, 2005 (GMT+12)

• User's only edit. RickK 23:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Which 8 universities? If this is true, name them in the article. As it stands, we only have the assertion that it runs at one university. Uncle G 18:20, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

• Surely you're seeking to avoid article bloat? The universities are Victoria University (Wellington), Auckland University (Auckland AND Albany campus), Massey University (Palmerston North AND Wellington), Canterbury University (Christchurch), Waikato University (Hamilton), and Lincoln University (Canterbury). You only have the assertion that "New Zealand" even exists, you know :) If you'd like someone to rewrite the article, you only have to ask. Mr Chinnery 16:53, Jan 13, 2005 (GMT+12)

• The universities are — Read both what I wrote above and the {{vfd}} notice on the article. Uncle G 19:28, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
• You only have the assertion that "New Zealand" even exists — False. That notwithstanding, we have more evidence presented for its existence than we have presented here for the notability of this cartoon strip. Uncle G 19:28, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
• Article rewritten to more closely match Wikipedia guidelines. Mr Chinnery 11:37, Jan 14, 2005 (GMT+12)

• Keep it, I don't know if the Wikipedia is region specific, but Brundswick is certainly a New Zealand Student Icon, with Grant Buist a dedicated staple at comic conventions around the country. Cheers, Grant Robinson 11:24am, Jan 11, 2005 (GMT +12)

• Anon votes are not counted. RickK 23:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, according to deletion policy, a correct statement is "Votes by anonymous users won't count if the administrator decides to take the anonymity as evidence of bad faith.". Is signing onesself "Grant Robinson" directly bad faith, or just a novice mistake from someone who has followed the Wikipedia publicity on the strip's web site to here and decided to weigh in on the discussion? Uncle G 18:20, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

• Delete. Some cult cartoon at one university is not encyclopedia-notable. RickK 00:52, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure the comic is funny though. Delete. hfool/Roast me 03:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I fail to comprehend how this is an appropriate reason for deletion. David Thomsen 13th Jan 2005

• Delete, insufficent evidence of wide readership or notability. Wyss 01:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I question how hard this person looked to find sufficient evidence. David Thomsen Jan 13 05

• Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Indrian 07:26, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, but would suggest that those who wish to keep would do better to improve the article to demonstrate notablility than to just come here and say "no, no, it really is important". -- Jmabel | Talk 18:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Don't know what the policy on comics is, but this is probably the most notable in NZ (I remember it from *my* student days at Massey Uni). Whether that makes it notable enough for Wikipedia is another question, but I'd judge it a weak keep. Ziggurat 14:08, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf Services Company

The article looks like a Babblefish translation. DCEdwards1966 07:56, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm fronting on the ingenious cacophonic undertures of the new renaissance right now, if you know what I mean. And I think you do. Delete as nonsense (probably unintended nonsense, but they didn't even provide a location and there are many organizations with that name.). iMeowbot~Mw 08:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Josh Cherry 14:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Edeans 09:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable sophistry. Megan1967 00:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a machine translation of an ad from Arabic. Wyss 01:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. I love Babelfish and chips. --Deathphoenix 16:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Berom

Non-notable. Google only shows one hit. DCEdwards1966 08:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MP3Search.Ru

Non-notable music download site. Plop 08:17, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turdsmania

Non-notable on its own. I don't know if it would make sense to merge with Steve Martin. DCEdwards1966 08:27, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merging would only make sense if Turdsmania was a notable aspect of Martin's career. Delete. —tregoweth 23:17, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancraft. Ashibaka tlk 07:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Wyss 01:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it had a higher google count (than the 45 I got), I would have voted for cleanup. --Deathphoenix 16:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge anything solid and let it decompose naturally at Steve Martin Pedant

[edit] Howard and Grazer

An article about Ron Howard (American director) and Brian Grazer as a partnership developing from Imagine Entertainment. However, it says next to nothing and its potential usefulness is unclear. (I may be wrong, but I don't think that "Howard and Grazer" is a name that's widely used.) The author redirected the decent but admittedly uninformative stub on Grazer as well as the good and greatly more informative article on Howard to this new page; I've reverted both changes. -- Hoary 08:31, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

• Delete. Another mess from the Cartoon Vandal. Gamaliel 16:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More nonsense from the Cartoon Vandal. They're often referred to together, but not by this name, and not as some single joined entity. —tregoweth 21:39, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a pseudo fork, unhelpful. Wyss 01:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phi Phi island verwüstet

As stated in the article, a tidied autotranslation, possibly from this blog (I can't verify since Altavista's translation service appears to be down right now). Curiously, the history is only showing my edit right now (there was just one edit before mine: the article's creation). Perhaps the database will catch up later. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eastside District

Band vanity. Unknown rap group, still in school, no albums released. SWAdair | Talk 10:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• delete Guys, again, wrong way. Make a blog, publish a fotolog. Home record your songs and put them on the Archive.org. Link to them. Go to Irate, gnomoradio and tell them about you. Forget you album release and just put it all online. Then come back here when we can hear your songs.--Alexandre Van de Sande 13:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vaporband, vanity. Wyss 01:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. Maybe I should write several articles about unknown people. --Deathphoenix 16:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diadem (physics)

This is not physics, this is nonsense. --Pjacobi 12:29, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

• I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam I Am. I do not like them with the Diaminic Core. I do not like them with a Spatial Traversal Door. Delete. --Zarquon 14:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • hahaha Ground 14:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like nonsense to me. Josh Cherry 14:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• See, when you postulate special kinds of wormholes (possible exception if you're Kip Thorne), as opposed to the common-or-garden normal kind, that's usually a bad sign. Delete, and consign to the Diamanic Core... Shimgray 16:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, all one needs now is a note from the author saying this idea was graciously provided by extra-terrestrial visitors. Original research, ramblings. Wyss 18:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, but you guys won't be ready for this for another 600 of your earth years at the earliest. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. (!!!!) It appears that this, uh, jewelled crown of an article has been in the Diadem article since it was contributed 23:29, 7 Nov 2004 by 155.31.31.58. On 18:05, 13 Dec 2004 J3ff began work on making Diadem into a disambiguation page, and created this article from the "info" in Diadem. Since then, the article has had several editors work on it, correcting spelling errors and typos, assigning categories to it, etc. We're probably lucky nobody tried to create articles for the red-links. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have given it a {{nonsense}} tag. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 22:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Due to the fact that time is relevant, I propose that we speedy it, when the criteria are expanded. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 04:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bollocks (physics). No, really, Delete. DJ Clayworth 05:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• go to warp 9, go back in time and delete' this last november Pedant

[edit] Indonesian 1998 Revolution - Fall of Suharto

Duplicates Indonesian 1998 Revolution. Rd232 14:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like someone created this article on December 3, edited it once a few minutes later and left it. Then late last month he or someone else forked it off to Indonesian 1998 Revolution and it was been edited a few times over the next two days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete this fork (the content is interestingly written and helpful but could use some cleanup too). Wyss 18:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all the relevant content of this page is in Indonesian 1998 Revolution, and better organized there. Cdc 23:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article duplicating fork. Megan1967 00:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bangkok Declaration

Source document. Belongs on Wikisource if licensable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Move to Wikisource and Delete from here. RickK 00:43, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Yup yup. Delete.Wikisource's stuff. __earth 07:21, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from here. Megan1967 00:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although it wouldbe useful to have an artucle on the Bangkok Declaration, which created ASEAN in 1967. Capitalistroadster 09:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource. --Deathphoenix 16:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge Lilyana

[edit] Skultamaphon

Promo for a nonnotable band. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no album, "on hiatus", gak. Cdc 23:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vaporband. Wyss 01:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable vanity. --Deathphoenix 16:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, when they get back from hiatus, maybe they will get around to cutting their first album... then, we'll see... Pedant

from VfD:

Nonnotable software. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• keep Medical freeware for diagnosis and treatment, for PDAs, developed by ACS. If Bones's tricorder and its related nonsense about PADDs, isolinear chips, kiloquads and the like get a few entries, this real technology gets one. Isn't the American Cancer Society of just a teensy bit more significance than Paramount? Beam me up, Scotty! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatent ad/vanity RoySmith 21:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad copy for a version that doesn't even exist. RickK 00:42, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I did a little research. It seems this thing is genuinely being developed/funded/something by the American Cancer Society (see http://www.cancer.org/c-tools ) which is a pretty decent credential IMHO. I'd imagine this article will stay low-key until the software is released, at which point it will be expanded. And it's supposed to be out fairly soon. Not sure whether it's freeware: several sources claim it is, but cancer.org shows a retail-box-type graphic. Either way, notable enough for me. Starblind 02:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • ACS says upfront that it's free to healthcare professionals. It isn't going to be a lot of use to the rest of us. Whoever nominated this for Vfd: Get a life. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an absolutely unnaceptable response to a legitimate VfD listing, Tony. You may disagree with the listing, but you have no right to make personal attacks on those who list it. RickK 09:02, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Accepted. Criticism withdrawn. I apologise unreservedly to the nominator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable. Bryan 18:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a question for those voting Keep: How can nonexistant software be notable? According to the article, this software has not even been released yet. RickK 21:07, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Fair question. Several points of rebuttal: It's coming very soon--Q1 2005, which we're in right now--if it had been 2007 or 2008 my vote may have been different. Also, the support of the ACS adds a lot of credibility. This isn't a freeware game made by some kid. Finally, being in development is not a reason for exclusion as far as I can see: we have extensive articles for Windows Longhorn and even Duke Nukem Forever... hell, there's even a page for Windows Blackcomb, not due until 2012!! Starblind 23:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I think that's a good point. Before voting keep, I checked that the software was under Beta test. [3] [4]. By my personal standards, ACS is a reputable organization and if they say they're running betas I take their word for it. Your mileage, as they say, may vary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a fortune-teller. Niteowlneils 22:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 00:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the distro is notable. Wyss 01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Hello I am the author of this entry. I have to admit that as a noob to wikipedia I didn't realize that I should of complete the whole entry at one time. If you visit our Web site you will see that it is a real project and that we just finished the Beta Test today of both the Palm and Pocket PC versions. Anyway if you choose to remove this as not being complete I will understand and post it again when I can site down and make a good go of it. Hopefully I will also be updating the American Cancer Society, Great American Smokeout and other ACS releasted articles soon. Thanks for letting me speak my mind and sorry about the incomplete article. I will flesh it out more tonight--Acsblogger 04:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and maybe add a {{stub}} to it. This is notable enough and has the support of a notable organisation. It's a work in progress, and I say Acsblogger deserves a chance to work on the article some more. --Deathphoenix 16:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So does this vote open the door for articles on any and all vaporware? RickK 23:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand why you'd consider this vaporware. Based on every definition I've ever seen, 'vaporware' is software that's been announced or hyped but isn't actually in serious production (usually with the implication that it never will be). This already has a working beta, and therefore isn't vaporware. Even the most cynical among us would have to admit that this has a better chance of being released than Duke Nukem Forever, and that has an article. Starblind 18:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • This software has not been released. Unless you're a fortune teller and can say for certain that it WILL be released, it's vaporware. RickK 23:52, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the problem is with the software not yet being released, since it's been in beta test, which means some actual ordinary target users are running actual copies of this software on their palmtops as we speak. If I were looking for a precedent for articles on vaporware, I'd go for software packages that are no more than names, such as Windows Blackcomb. They do exist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep more notable than the Bajoran wormhole Pedant
• keep - David Gerard 19:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] VfD

Given the voting log's presence in this particular section, I will assume that voting has closed for this article - but I would have voted for delete. Is it Wiki policy that all software products deserve an article or is there a defined standard as to which should be included and which should not? What makes this product more deserved of inclusion in an encyclopedia than all of the other medical references available? Does the blessing of a significant organization (i.e. the ACS) automatically make this product significant? Edwardian 16:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are no fixed standards. In general items that are verifiable may tend to be hard to delete, unless they appear to be useless. If you think the article should have been deleted, it's acceptable to nominate again, but the result of the vote would probably be the same. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)