Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 1

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

[edit] Franco Lombardi, Lombardites, "Sexy Night", "Sexy Nighters" Sexy Nighters

Non-notable alledged musician. Only one out-dated hit for "Franco Lombardi" "Sexy Night". Only one out-dated hit for "Marvin's Amazing Pens". Niteowlneils 1 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

Zero relevant hits for "Lombardites" or "Sexy Nighters". Listing merged. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

• Delete non notable, notability not established JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)
• Delete all the Lombardi related entries. drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
• Delete all of the related entries. Unpublished songs and the artists who write them (and their two-person fan groups) are not notable. --Habap 1 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
• Delete all Franco Lombardi entries. Fails WP:MUSIC, probable hoax: name is suspiciously close to Star Fox character Falco Lombardi, presence of fanbase movement unverifiable and—given he is supposedly an Internet-only artist whose songs are hard to come by—highly unlikely. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
• Delete all the Lombardi related entries. drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)
• Delete, musician vanity, unverifiable. And I doubt anyone much cares anyway. "Small cult audience" does not music notability make. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
• Delete unless significant evidence of importance or notability is presented. -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 16:26 (UTC)
• Delete blatant vanity. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
• Delete all (unless "Lombardites" is ever used for fans of Vince Lombardi and/or Guy Lombardo). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 1 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
• Delete --Tysto 2005 July 1 23:14 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Smells like a hoax.--Jyril July 2, 2005 19:17 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

[edit] Moldenseren

Delete - vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 1 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

• Delete non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. Martpol 1 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Non-famous, not infamous. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
• Delete, college vanity/prank/harassment, Saying subject is "unknown" (while inconsistent with "infamous") is admission of non-notability. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Scimitar 7 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

[edit] Kokusai-Dori

This is a stub about a downtown area of a city in Japan, Naha. The scant content here is similar to existing content in the main article and is therefore duplicative. Unless there's substantially more content to add here, this content seems best located within the Naha article rather than a stand-alone. Tobycat 1 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

• Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)
• Boy, that takes me back. Merge whatever isn't duplicated and Redirect to Naha. --Calton | Talk 1 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)
• Merge and make a redirect. -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 16:26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

[edit] COA News

Spam. The same contributor added a link to the COA News web site in 20 or so articles last week. Rhobite July 1, 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not what you say about the link additions is true, you're going to have to judge the actual content of this article. Toban July 1, 2005

It is true, check Special:Contributions/65.49.1.54. As for this article, it's an ad for a relatively unknown news web site, which violates Wikipedia's policy on self-promotion. Rhobite July 1, 2005 01:21 (UTC)

• Delete. Only 9 displayed hits for "COA News" currents; Alexa rank 664,255; likely self-promotion--site in Ontario, anon contrib's IP from an ISP serving eastern Canada. Niteowlneils 1 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)
• Delete ad -Harmil 1 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)
• Keep. 4000 Google hits, and news sources are usually notable. Besides, a website like Wikipedia which fights bias and serves no banner is probably one of the first places people would want to go if they wanted to learn about where their news is coming from. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
• Delete per low Alexa rank. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 14:06 (UTC)
• Delete Spam advertising. --Tysto 2005 July 1 23:53 (UTC)

• Keep. If you notice I added the 20 links to pages that directly relate to COA News - this is not spam but adding to wikipeida - I'm just participating, and adding links/pages I feel should be added. The article was written in an objective manner, if you disaggree please direct me to the section of the article that you feel in not objective, and perhaps I will change it.

I'm really not sure why a website needs to have a high Alexa rank to deserve an article. Is Wikipedia supposed to be only for very popular websites and organizations? If so I think many, many other articles may need to be deleted.infoawareness 2005 July 4 14:23 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Unanimous keep. Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

[edit] Lubawa County

My research, which has been confirmed by two other wikipedians who claim knowlege on the subject, has determined that there is actually no Lubawa County in Poland. Therefore no article by this title should exist. There is a Lubawa which already has an article, but no Lubawa County. So, this page should be deleted, as it is innacurate and impossible to fix. Gblaz July 1, 2005 01:08 (UTC)

• Changed to Keep based on research below. Unsure at the moment. I did find an article at http://www.pgsa.org/Counties/countiesB.htm which claims to be from 1880 and mentions this county (and doesn't seem to be sourced from Wikipedia). Is it possible that this is just a former name of an area now called something else? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 01:41 (UTC)
• Keep Following the "what links here", I found the phrase, "powiat lubawski" on Pomeranian Voivodship. Via Google, this took me to a page of the same name, which appears to be a history of the area, based on a terrible P->E translator that I used. Someone who reads Polish should check out that page, and inject appropriate facts (including the current status, if any, of this region). -Harmil 1 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)
  • Great research, Harmil. Using the history page you found, I translated it with Poltran. It sure didn't make easy reading, but I think I got enough to confidently say that Lubawa County did indeed exist at one time, at least. Needs expansion and possibly even renaming, but should definitely stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 12:36 (UTC)

Yes, I made mistake. There was Lubawa County in Poland 1945-1950. Sorry! Keep Vuvar1 1 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

• Ok, so much for my attempt to be thorough... So my vote is now for Keep. At least I got the page off the Speedy Delete list long enough to get the right answer. Gblaz July 1, 2005 18:47 (UTC)
• Keep: Looks valid enough, expandable. Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:50 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

[edit] Mathmagic

Worksheets for learning math, author claims to ouw copyright, not encyclopedic, delete --nixie 1 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

• delete Non-encyclopedic, lack of notability. What's more, this is at least the third most well-known use of the word, with the first two being computer software and a well-known Donald Duck movie. The only argument for keeping it would be to turn it into a disambiguation page, but I just don't see the need. -Harmil 1 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. Technically, the Disney movie is Donald in Mathmagic Land, but otherwise agree in full. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
• Delete advanity. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, although I did get a chuckle out of remembering the "mathemagician" from The Simpsons. — Ливай | ☺ 1 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Salsb 1 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

[edit] Chlorophobia

Word means simply "fear of the color green". Unable to verify the anecdote. Without that, this is just another dicdef. Denni☯ 2005 July 1 01:18 (UTC)

• Redirect to -phobia, a list of phobias on which this is listed and defined. Hiding 1 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)
• Redirect as Hiding drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete this article. No need for redirect. Falphin 1 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Redirect to phobia if you must. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:47 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason I suggested a redirect is that someone turned up here and created the article, implying other people will hear the term and turn up here searching for it. Hiding 4 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap, and when that guy comes looking in whatever millenium, he'll be pointed to the right place. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 01:19 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

[edit] Duressed bi-curiosity

I don't think this article is encyclopædic, frankly, even without it being an orphan. I'm not convinced it's not a speedy-delete. Anyone who knows more about sexology fancy commenting further? — OwenBlacker July 1, 2005 01:30 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced nonsense. Ambi 1 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)
• I can find no source for this in Google or Google Scholar. However, there is considerable scientific literature on, for example, homosexuality and sexual culture in prisons. I am also not convinced that the word "duressed" is a properly formed verb, having been unable to find it at dictionary.com and being forced to ignore Google freaking out about a misspelling. It's my feeling that if anything this should be merged with either bisexuality or a sexual culture section be added to prison, most likely with bisexuality since prison is not the only scope of this article as it stands. In either case, it needs appropriate citation. -SocratesJedi | Talk 1 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
  • Changing gender orientation under duress has been scientifically proven -- homosexuality has been induced in rats through a combination of high population density and lack of stimuli (plain white walls, no features, no visible exits, identical tasteless food day in and day out), even with access to the other gender. That phenomenon would make a notable article. But I don't think that should be confused with this. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism. Axon 1 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism. -- AlexR 1 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is thinly veiled hate speech. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, unless some sources can be cited. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)
• Merge with Situational sexual behavior and/or Prison sexuality ~~~~ 1 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think "bi-curious" is a proper academic term. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
• Merge with an appropriate article such as bisexuality, otherwise delete. I have heard of the phenomenon as described, but cannot verify that the correct terminology is used here. (Rob Church, 23:52 01/07/05 GMT)
• Delete per bainer. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)
• Delete Unfounded claims that smell of POV. Title is non-standard grammar.
• What this article describes is usually referred to as "prison homosexuality" or "situational homosexuality", but even those terms are problematic. This one is beyond problematic; it's non-existent. Delete with prejudice. Bearcat 2 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearcat. Quale 3 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, apparently unverifiable -- The Anome July 3, 2005 10:03 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

[edit] Edogy

Non-notable Doom mod author. Only 13 displayed hits for "Demoniac Discord", only 14 displayed hits for edogy doom, and most hits for "MONSTERS FIGHT!" doom are other uses. Niteowlneils 1 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:40 (UTC)
• Delete, modder vanity. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect. Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Anne Bryant

Non-notable wife of a member of the music trio Hanson.[1] Niteowlneils 1 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a redirect to Hanson; it looks like the important stuff's already merged over there. "Natalie Anne Bryant" + Hanson gets 1,370 Google hits, so people have heard of her... but it doesn't appear that she's done anything notable by herself... she's pretty much just a girl who married Taylor Hanson when she was 18. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taylor Hanson. Verbatim excerpt of two sentences that are already in Taylor Hanson. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taylor Hanson. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
• Delete. Uvaduck 2 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
• Delete Spearhead 3 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)

[edit] "Leykis 101"

Original research, delete. Gazpacho 1 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)
• Delete Not sure if I would call this research Groeck 1 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)
• Merge and cleanup information to go into Tom Leykis. I'm rather disappointed in myself that I recognized his name, but there you have it, a truncated version of this information belongs there, if anywhere. --Badlydrawnjeff 1 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not a collection of misogynist quotes from people's radio shows. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. Tobycat 1 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
• Delete "Original research" is very, very kind. --Tysto 2005 July 2 01:45 (UTC)
• Delete Stupid article. --Preaky 3 July 2005 07:05 (UTC
• Delete since the Tom Leykis article has a link to it, although a mention of the rules in the article would not be out of place if brief. Very brief. With clarity that the sh,,, er, stuff comes from Leykis (and perhaps his staff and listeners). --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep by a 9-8 vote. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Castle

Delete. Blatant self-promotion, created by person named in article; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not RasputinAXP 1 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable musician. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

• Delete, nn jamesgibbon 1 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)

• Keep. Self-promotional, yes, but has released an actual album you can buy on Amazon, gets plenty of Google hits for himself and his work, and guitarstraps.com seems to consider him a "famous customer", to boot. No hits at the Apple Music Store, though ("Did you mean Jerky Cattle? Your search Jeremy Castle did not match any results.") --Calton | Talk 1 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)
  • Hitting his "what links here" page also incorrectly lists him on several 'famous musician' pages as well as incorrectly stating he's sold 20 million albums on the RIAA chart. The only reason I noticed anything was because someone listed him on Baritone as famous above Bing Crosby RasputinAXP 1 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
• Keep for above reasons. Martpol 1 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
• Keep but majorly overhaul. He should get his own PR man because we're not going to do it for him. "Famous lefthander" my ass. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a yearbook; most of the article is describing his school career. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
• Keep. As of 20 million , i removed his entry from List of best-selling music artists, because it was probably added by Jeremy Castle Vorash 1 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
• Keep - he appears to have developed into a release artist, and has an album available for sale on Amazon. I think the page needs some editing and toning-down, however. (Rob Church, 23:57 01/07/05 GMT)
• Keep and cleanup. Allmusic.com confirms release of record in 2002 on Orchard Records. The so-called singles are really tracks on the album. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
  • Have now cleaned up article removing singles and reducing the POV. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with JamesBurns. --Tysto 2005 July 2 02:20 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, not even well known here in his hometown--Tosei 3 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
• Weak delete, sounds like he's self-published, and that doesn't count for WP:MUSIC. Orchard records doesn't google except to other labels including those words, and a couple of marketplace sites. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:49 (UTC)
• Keep--unsure about the album, but between that and the tour mentioned he meets WP:MUSIC. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 14:54 (UTC)
• Keep--This article is fine as revised. Leave it.

• Unsigned vote. Couldn't trace down user. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

• Keep-- This article should stay now that it has been edited.Randycrabtree

• 3 edits, all to this article.--Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

[edit] NESARA

• Delete Completely idiosyncratic non-topic -- not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think it should be deleted. At best this merits a brief entry on a page about hoaxes or perhaps on a page about bizarre social engineering projects.--csloat 30 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)
• Keep This reason for deletion is idiosyncratic itself as it bears no resemblence to reality. This article is supported by a book, a movie, a nonprofit organization, and provides a well known example for new Wikipedia general categories of monetary reform, and tax reform. Modeled after the Fair tax article, it could be submitted that this article on NESARA be split into two articles: one about the NESARA internet hoax, with a reference to the legitimate version; and then a seperate article about the legitimate NESARA bill itself as currently under review by the Presiden't Commission for Tax Reform at www.taxreformpanel.gov; and presented to many congress persons over the last decade. I am currently not aware of any Wikipedia litmus test for legislative proposals as being limited only to proposals that are submitted to congress and have a bill number. Though some NPOV issues are raised due to the lack of arguments against NESARA, that can easily be addressed by expanding the appropriate section.--Inigmatus 30 June 2005 22:28 (UTC).
• Comment No vote yet, but the germs of the arguments are in the article's Talk page. -EDM 30 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)
• Delete Pure nonsense. Read the content. Hoax sounds about right. Groeck 1 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)

The article is now split into two

• Keep I split the article into two, one for the conspiracy theory, one for the legislative proposal. I was uncomfortable with this information being mushed together in one article from the onset, and this makes so much more sense. Especially now that it's being considered for deletion, and the reasons for or against deleting one are so much more different from the arguments for and against deleting the other. So this discussion is on deleting the article containing information on the legislative proposal. I vote AGAINST deleting it, but I do think it really needs to be compressed to about 20 percent of its current size, and needs more balance. - sednar (talk · contribs)
• Keep both articles -- this, so that there is a "fair comment" NPOV articel on NESARA, for those who want to know about it; and the conspiracy/hoax page so that people who hear about it can find out the (relatively NPOV, though Ms.Goodwin would not agree) objective view of NESARA-the-patent-nostrum --Simon Cursitor 1 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)
• Delete both, not significant enough for more than a brief mention in an article about social engineering projects proposed by minor non-governmental organisations. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
• Keep both, especially after the split. In the legislative sense, NESARA does seem to one of the thousands of proposals. Regardless of one's opinions about the viability of the proposal, it is now very famous proposal in some circles, connected to hoaxes, fraud, etc. If somebody would come to WP looking for information about it, these articles can really clear things up. No doubt there is the usual risk that pro-NESARA folks will try to vandalize them to adovacate their POV, but it has not lead to deletion of even more controversial places. - Skysmith 1 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
• Note: to people voting keep both above: the other half of the article is being discussed on another VfD, so just saying keep both here will not have the intended effect. --cesarb 1 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
• Cleanup, MASSIVELY. This should be an article examining the conspiracy theory (the "conspiracy theory" fork should be deleted)... not a lengthy ramble describing specific provisions of a bill that does not actually exist. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
  • Comment The draft does exist in the public domain here: It does not have a THOMAS locator registry number since it has not been submited to Congress for review, however the draft of the bill does exist in 24 pages available to the public, drafted by Dr. Harvey F. Barnard. Inigmatus 1 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
    • Some random person drafting a bill and publishing it on the Internet does not mean Congress has ever considered or will ever consider it, any more than if you or I did the same. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
      • First NESARA was drafted in 1991 before the internet. It's in a published book called "Draining the Swamp", a movie is being made of the hoax version of it, and it is under official review by the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.
    • Second, I was not aware that entry on the offical THOMAS Congressional record was a WP requirement for a legislative proposal, let alone a litmus test for such an article's removal. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:18 (UTC)
  • Trolling accusations are inappropriate; assume good faith. The thing is that I don't believe there is any "legitimate" NESARA bill. Sure, a few private citizens in a country of 250 million people might support such a bill, but that doesn't make it a bill "under consideration by Congress." Therefore, there should only be one article, discussing the conspiracy theory surrounding this phantom bill, and it should be under the NESARA label. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
    • Good faith assumed, if not trolling, then certainly the reasons for VfD seem to be a matter of POV regarding the article's validity. One only need check out the references to be convined the validity of the article and its necessity in a public encyclopedia. If you wish to propose a change to VfD guidelines, feel free to do so. Currently, there is no rule limiting articles on proposed legislation to only articles submitted in the Congressional THOMAS record. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
      • Please demonstrate that the President is actually reviewing this bill, beyond simply linking me to a generic government agency website. Otherwise, a legislative proposal that has never been, and most likely will never be, actually considered by a legislative body is not notable. The conspiracy theory, however, is. Article should reflect that. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
        • In an email received by Dr. Harvey F. Barnard on May 2, 2005, he told me he has spoken with the Vice-Chair of the panel, former US Senator John Breaux from his home state of Louisianna, and sent him a copy of the book "Draining the Swamp" at John's request. I can provide this email, if necessary.Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:41 (UTC)
          • Okay; reasonable minds may differ at this point. I suspect Mr. Breaux was simply being polite ;-) However, I cannot prove a negative and prove that Congress will never consider it; that would be impossible. Still, evaluating how truly radical the bill is and what little solid evidence there is IMO that it truly is a "legislative proposal" in the sense of anyone in the legislature actually caring about it, I still maintain that the proposal itself is not notable, and that the NESARA article need discuss the proposal only in the context of the notable conspiracy theory. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you can explain what makes the bill any more radical than the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, or the FairTax Act of 2005, and therefore not worthy of inclusion in WP; if not only to serve as an article of reference from which a large internet hoax was based from? At this point, I am sure you can agree we are merely discussing a POV difference on the merits of the bill. We are really not talking about its legitimacy, or validity, or about any particularly applicable VfD WP deletion rule. Splitting this article was the most appropriate solution to the debate between text overload, and I agree that the NESARA article could use some better summarization, but no more I would expect than to see in FairTax. Because there is no real VfD rule infringed here that can not be addressed by its splitting, I would appeal to the community to consider this VfD irrelevant and closed. Of course, in the spirit of the community, I'd still like to hear of any recommendations for cleanup of these split articles, if you feel they need it. After all, this is wiki. :)Inigmatus July 1, 2005 20:58 (UTC)
              • Agree that article "to serve as an article of reference from which a large internet hoax was based" is appropriate; see my "cleanup" vote above. Disagree that we're not discussing applicable VfD WP deletion rules when, IMO, one of the subjects of the two NESARA-related articles is not notable. But perhaps that is better discussed in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory VfD, since that is the one I feel should be deleted, with its content largely ported over here. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
                • I'm glad we can agree on keeping NESARA. Now as to NESARA conspiracy theory I will leave that discussion on that page. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
• Keep, this VFD is ridiculous, see my comments @ Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
• This article is a split of NESARA that was performed by 67.168.88.65 (talk · contribs) during that article's VFD discussion, apparently intended to address the concerns brought up in that discussion. (See this explanation and this explanation by that user.) For GFDL reasons, if for no other, its deletion should be brought under the umbrella of that VFD discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-01 19:23:01 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Wikipedia is not the place for detailed description of a legislative proposal not championed by a legislator, but it deserves an entry as a semi-legitimate idea co-opted by scammers. --Tysto 2005 July 2 01:37 (UTC)
• Delete the crackpottery and legislative vaporware, include the scam/hoax part from NESARA conspiracy theory --Calton | Talk 2 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)
  • So far no one has been able to explain what makes it crackpot. Perhaps you can back up your statement with fact? 168.103.83.38 2 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
    • Put as briefly as possible, and listing only the most obvious reasons, the proposal is crackpottery because: it is written by one individual, an autodidact, and promoted through an organization that is purely web-based; it has been around for years and has not found a single legislative sponsor; the bill and its promotional literature uses the lingo of fringe groups such as tax protesters, survivalists, and marginal populists. Despite all this, still no vote. -EDM 2 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
      • First, may I remind you that it is the reason the hoaxters coopted the draft that it has a hard time finding Congressional support, and second the "lingo" is used by supporters of the FairTax and other tax reform proposals that have Congressional sponsorship. I think you present a weak case on it being "crackpot" so far. Besides being crackpot, I still don't see how it yet has to violate a Wikipedia deletion rule. So far no one has presented a proper case. Inigmatus July 4, 2005 03:31 (UTC)
    • I'll also offer the following as further support for the proposition that the NESARA proposal is crackpottery, on the related principles of "the company they keep" or "by their fruits shall ye know them." It was posted on a NESARA discussion board here by a supporter of the NESARA proposal, and it pertains to the Terri Schiavo (or Terri Schindler Schiavo, depending on your POV) fuss of a few months ago:

An innocent woman has been publically executed after 13 days of court-ordered torture. Our judicial system has failed the higher law. The other two branches of government should have followed the higher law, just as people disobeyed the Nazi order to not harbor Jews during WWII. At the very least, if NESARA was law, it would have helped foster a culture of governmental honesty and openness that could have shed the light on the conflict-of-interests so rampant in this case - and maybe even prevented her murder by court-ordered dehydration. May she become a martyr for real change.

There are fine arguments on both sides of the right-to-life/right-to-die debate, but I suggest that it's only the crackpots who would address those arguments through a legislative proposal ostensibly directed at monetary and fiscal reform. -EDM 5 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)

• • • • I think you're getting desperate, and still have yet to prove its crackpottery. You've gone to fishing on my message board and all you can find is some obscure quote I wrote on my own message board months ago. Besides, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that in a government were honesty is fostered as a culture, that it would also permeate its judicial system, and that in principle, had such honesty been more forthcomming in the Shiavo case, the judge would have been pressured to recuse himself from it due to his conflicts of interests in the case. And no one will say it's "crackpot" to believe government should try to be more honest with its citizens. If you think this is a crackpot comment, well, ... I let your beliefs stand for what they are. You make the case against yourself, and fail to align your previous statement as having anything remotely to do with this VfD - and I might add, your statements about my own quote are way off this topic. Besides, I have yet to meet another NESARA supporter who shared my particular view in that quote anyways, so you have yet to make a case that even NESARA supporters in general are crackpots (or even myself for that matter).
  • On a related note, just because you deem maybe one supporter of the bill a crackpot (which you still can't prove), doesn't mean the bill itself is crackpot, which is what you have yet to prove - and is the point of this VfD discussion - and is what I'm still waiting to hear. You should judge the idea on its own merit, and let it stand by itself, for the article is not about me, nor about you, but about an NPOV on a bill responsible for one of the most well-known internet hoaxes still ongoing. I'm still waiting, and I'm sure those following this conversation are still waiting to hear a valid case too. We're at day 5 of this VfD and still you have not presented a valid case for deletion. If you have no further response in regards to the merits of this bill, and can't produce valid arguments in favor for its deletion according to the WP Deletion Guideliens, then I rest my case. Inigmatus July 5, 2005 18:55 (UTC)
    • As I've stated repeatedly, I haven't taken a position on whether this article should be deleted or kept, so it's not really accurate to say I'm "desperate" one way or the other. I've only posted a bit of information and commentary and it's all seeming to take on a life of its own. Based on Inigmatus' last post immediately above, I'm more convinced than ever that NESARA is one of the crackier pots around. Still, I'm leaning toward a keep vote on this article, for its amusement value if nothing else, assuming it can get cut down to a paragraph or two. -EDM 5 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
  • And back to something that does actually have to do with this VfD discussion: NESARA is not a bill. Until it gets introduced in Congress by an actual member of that august body, and thereby becomes a bill and acquires some notability, NESARA is simply somebody's idea (good or bad). That is one of the reasons that this article, if it is to be kept, should be substantially reduced in size. -EDM 5 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)
• Just a note on notability - I posted this to the other vfd page too - I did a lexis/nexis search for the word "nesara" -- fulltext, not just titles -- for all dates available and found only one use of the word, in a letter to the editor from 2001 written by some guy in denver. That seems to be very non-notable. And the creator of this page keeps insisting that this is one of the "most popular internet hoaxes" which first should have no bearing on the page about the economic theory but second is simply not true; there is nothing about it in the Snopes urban legends database. So I am even more convinced now that this article and the other one refer to items that are not yet notable in any significant way.--csloat 5 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
  • I think there is some confusion in terminology that it would be as well to make an effort to clear up, involving the three distinct concepts of (1) Internet hoax; (2) Internet scam; (3) tin-foil hat delusions. Concept (1) is the kind of thing you find on snopes, like the tourist on the World Trade Center with the airplane heading at him. Those are spoofs deliberately manufactured to amuse or deceive. Neither NESARA item ("Dr." Barnard's idea nor the "secret bill to be announced imminently which will pay off all our mortgages with space alien currency") is that. The NESARA item in this VfD—Inigmatus' NESARA, found at [2]—is very marginally concept (3) and does not appear at all to be concept (2). The "other" NESARA item—Dove of Oneness's ravings at [3]—is very heavily concept (3) with a bit of concept (2) showing up as well. If either one is notable, or delete-worthy, it's for different reasons.
• One other data point: Inigmatus says he is in the Denver area. -EDM 5 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
• It's just a bill, not a law. There are many thousands of bills every year. We neither need nor want articles on every one of them. Worse, it's not even a bill yet. It's an unsponsored "draft proposed bill" which, if the article is to be believed, espouses a fundamentally flawed theory about money. Unless someone can show much better evidence that this proposed bill is getting considerable public discussion or that NESARA has entered the public discourse, I have to vote "delete". Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you can back up your statement that the article espouses a "fundamentally flawed theory of money"? The hoax about serves as the appropriate level of public discourse. The purpose of this ariticle re-make was to make it clear to seperate the two since it would be in the public's best interest in investigating the hoax/scam or the proposed bill.168.103.83.38 6 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
    • I can but it's not relevant to the discussion because being a "fundamentally flawed theory" is not a deletion criterion. My comment was an opinion that I probably should have reserved to the article's page. The only relevant question to the deletion debate is whether or not this theory (flawed or not) is sufficiently in the public debate or historical record to justify an encyclopedia article. So far, I have seen insufficient evidence. No change of vote. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
• Comment: If this article is deleted, the related articles Harvey F. Barnard, NESARA Institute and the incorrectly named [[[Dr. Harvey F. Barnard]] should probably also be considered for deletion. Rossami (talk)
  • I agree these should be deleted too. I looked on lexis/nexis again and "Harvey F. Barnard" gets 0 hits; "Harvey Barnard" gets two but neither are relevant (a name in a long list of names). I also note that Inigmatus is the user who uploaded that photo and there is no copyright information on it; I wonder if it is from a private collection and this is some sort of vanity page? The page says he died in May so Inigmatus probably is not Dr. Barnard himself though. I'm curious to see how Inigmatus responds next.--csloat 6 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
  • The information on the NESARA Institute website is public domain.168.103.83.38 6 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
    • That photo is from the NESARA Institute website. So was essentially all of the text of the Harvey Barnard article, verbatim, till I cleaned it up. -EDM 6 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

      The information taken from the NESARA Institute website is public domain, and I did post verbatim the bill description since it did a better job than I could have. Thanks for cleaning the article up. Guys, look, I'm not out to defend the thing to the death, I'm just pointing out that there is relevant information that this article, and now the split article also addresses in full what I think is perfectly within the public information scope of this wikipedia. This article was originally about the NESARA conspiracy theory and I thought I was doing a public service by pointing out that it was based from an original bill proposal that does have merit, and it would serve the public interest to know the difference.

      Unfortunately, I can't motivate hoax and urban legend websites to update their information as easily as I can wikipedia. If you advocate for the deletion of this article, then you're advocating for something that goes against the founding idea of this wiki: namely the suppression of relevant information. It doesn't matter who or what I am, (but I'm not with the NESARA Institute, and I'm not Dr. Barnard). I like the NESARA proposal, and I spent three days pouring over the information after first hearing about it from WorldNetDaily to see if this guys was legit or crackpot. I found he was legit. Moreover, when I spoke and corresponded with him just weeks before he died, the more I realized this guy has faced an uphill battle since the hoax came out in force 5 years ago. After taking the time to read his recently published book, which was also requested by members of the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform, I offered to do what I could to set the public record straight wherever I found it, so when people start looking for it they don't see only info about some hoax, but also info about the legit bill. Now I see just how fustrating his own work was in this regard as I find people here in WP who without researching the issue simply now want to delete an article I modified with info about the legit bill, and so also now delete an entire article that has stood uncontested for over a year.

      Granted, this is wiki, and mercilessly information is modded and changed. However, I will do what I can to keep this relevant public information up in respect to a dying man's wish, and available to the pitifully duped uninformed NESARA community that has sprung up around the hoax version, and available to the public and Congress persons that NESARA is more than just a lame hoax, but is based off of something that is legit, and the public would like to be informed if they too knew there was a difference. There, I've said my two cents. Inigmatus July 6, 2005 04:38 (UTC)

• I think there is enough substance and bare notability to the NESARA proposal to warrant an article of about two paragraphs, but certainly not more. If the article is slashed to that length (a task I may undertake, though not imminently) my vote would be keep. But as others have pointed out, the decision is bound up with the decision on the other NESARA article, the one dealing with the conspiracy-theory version of this proposal, which I personally don't have the will to deal with as just reading it makes me ill. -EDM 6 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
  • I've put a draft revised article text on the article's Talk page. -EDM 6 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)

    Nice - I think that seems reasonable given the arguments made here. Much better than what was here.-csloat 6 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

    I agree and re-iterate my vote to keep. I expect the possibility of a minor editing war that might settle on something slightly longer eventually (which I won't take part in, my interest is with the conspiracy theory), but it accomplishes Inigmatus's apparent goal of distinguishing the proposal from the conspiracy theory and providing some background on the legislative proposal that originated the whole thing. -- sednar (talk · contribs)

    Consensus Reached I like the changes too. My edits would be to only add about two or three NESARA bill specific terms to the paragaphs. Otherwise, EDM go ahead and update the page with the changes, as it appears now there is a consensus. If no one else objects, I consider this VfD resolved in favor of Keep with EDM's revision. Anyone else concurr?Inigmatus July 6, 2005 14:36 (UTC)

• Page edited and NPOV tag removed. I vote keep and invite Sednar to do something similar to the conspiracy theory article. -EDM 6 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
• Page updated with 50% more relevant information. What remains in the article is basically NESARA in a nutshell, and hopefully still true to NPOV form unless otherwise referenced.Inigmatus July 6, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

[edit] Non Muslims that lived during Muahmmads time

A lot of non-Muslims lived during Muhammad's time -- more useful would be a listing of Muhammad-era Muslims. Jeff Anonymous 1 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

• Keep & rename - I understand the point of this I believe... There are the Sahaba, Ahlul Bayt, Muhammad's wives, etc. but there were non-Muslims who fit into the group of those who influenced early Islamic civilization and are hard to otherwise classify. As of now it's just a list of copyviolation articles but I think if we can find a better name it could provide useful insight to the context of the beginning of Islam. gren 1 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)
• Delete absurd article. What about Mr Smith who lived in Londinium? Or Pavel from Kiev-Rus? ~~~~ 1 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)
• Delete. No one is notable for having lived during someone else's lifetime. Extremely non-encyclopedic. Why not a list of all people alive in 2005 while you're at it? — JIP | Talk 1 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)
• Delete. Now, a list of non-Muslims that lived during Muhammad's time, that would be really somethign to see... Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
• Delete, I can understand where this is coming from, but as it stands, it's an impossible-to-maintain list. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
• Delete — Title does not reflect intent of content; impossible to complete; covered by other timeline pages. — RJH 1 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
• Delete as per JIP and RJH. — Ливай | Ⓣ 1 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)
• About as useful as List of non-Christians that lived during Jesus's time, thus delete. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:50 (UTC)
• Merge with Non-Muslims who interacted with Muslims during Muhammad's era. This has the potential (once the POV problems at the linked articles are ironed out) to be a handy reference for those who'd like to know how Muslims and non-Muslims regarded each other right at the beginning of Islamic history. However, there's already a page for this purpose that isn't misspelled and that has more names on it. They should be merged. --Skoosh 4 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
• Delete. Hard to maintain a list of about, oh, 500,000,000 people, even if it were encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep (23-10). Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew 1 and all similar articles

I've listed this here to question the encyclopedic status of Matthew 1 (and other pages very similar to it Matthew 2, Matthew 3, etc..., including all the individual verses subpages). It is my feeling that this is not what would be expected in an encyclopedia and would likely be better at Wikisource in just fulltext without the commentary (which would likely be POV). I personally believe that this page should probably be deleted as unencyclopedic (with it's objective, textual contents already retained at Wikisource), but am quite interested in community review. -SocratesJedi | Talk 1 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

• Keep, historical importance, etc. No reason why commentary would necessarily be POV. If it is, change it or send to cleanup. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 1 05:50 (UTC)
• My heart says delete, but we've already been through this with other articles on Bible chapters and even individual verses, and they always get kept so instead I'll just abstain. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 1 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
• Keep. Bible passages are certainly encyclopedic, and this article is certainly more than just the text of the chapter. NatusRoma 1 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
  • Why are they encyclopedic? We don't have Lord of the rings, page 12, sentence 10 or War and peace pages 50-100. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
    • Lord of the Rings and War and Peace are not foundational texts of western civilization. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
      • No, but Magna Carta is, even though we don't have seperate articles about it's clauses, such as Magna Carta 39, one of the most important things in the whole world - it is the right to the Rule of Law, and it still doesn't get an article, so how is Matthew 1:9 more worthy?. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)
        • You say it. I'm pretty sure that a decent article on Magna Carta 39 would survive VfD. — mark ✎ 3 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
• Keep. We've been through this already. There is no reason why all kinds of minor things in various utterly unimportant fantasy and SF universes with a strong following among geeks should have articles, while the most influential piece of literature in the Western world for the last 2000 years should not be treated in equal detail. Practically every chapter and verse of the Bible has been extensively commented, quoted, paraphrased, illustrated or alluded to in art, music and literature many times over. Wars and major religious splits have been caused by the interpretation of some verses. Even an individual chapter such as Matthew 1 is certainly more important for Western culture and history than everything concerning Babylon 5, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dune put together; heck, I'll even throw in Tolkien, Star Wars and Star Trek, not to mention all the Pokemon garbage. Did Bach or Handel write oratorios based on texts from Tolkien? Did Caravaggio, Leonardo or Rubens produce paintings based on passages from Star Trek? These articles just have to be based in scholarly literature (which this clearly is) and continuously watched for NPOV to prevent fundamentalist Bible-thumpers from taking over. But that's no different from many other articles on controversial topics. Uppland 1 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is a large number of bible verses that have not been "extensively commented, quoted, paraphrased, illustrated or alluded to in art, music and literature many times over". You're conflating New Testament and Bible. Where are the extensive quotations, allusions, and paraphrases of Esther 1:7 or 2 Chronicles 36:9? Uncle G July 1, 2005 13:24 (UTC)
• Keep. Important Biblical text. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for preaching or Exegesis on Biblical verse. There is nothing academically or otherwise significant about Matthew 1, unlike Mark 16 and John 21. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• Keep I have to say, I'm impressed. Good article, lots of detail and some facts about Matthew that I never knew (had not heard of a Jesse Tree before, which BTW should have an article). Nothing in the article seems to violate NPOV, but if -Ril- has some specific concerns, I'm sure he could make the appropraite changes. Disclaimer: I'm an atheist. Christians might consider everything in the article to be minor trivia, not worty of an article. To that, I'm unqualified to comment. -Harmil 1 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)
  • n.b. my reference to "preaching or Exegisis" is with regard to the existance of the article itself, rather than whatever goes within it. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
    • This VfD is about the execution of the articles, not the existence of the articles themselves. Factitious July 2, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
      • comment' The execution of articles should be taken up by Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages or by tagging for Wikipedia:Cleanup or Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. The deletion process specifically deals with the existence of the articles. Dystopos 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
• Keep. Must we go through this debate every few weeks? There have already been VfD discussions on John 20:16, John 20, Matthew 2:16, and Genesis 1:1. All of them ended with the pages being kept by a wide margin. Isn't it somewhat of a waste of everyone's time to have yet another deletion debate over Bible verses? - SimonP July 1, 2005 12:29 (UTC)
  • The main reason for their survival is systemic bias. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
  • This is a debate over a bible chapter, note. There have been VFD discussions where articles on chapters of religious texts have been deleted (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Akilam One, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Akilam Two). Uncle G July 1, 2005 13:38 (UTC)
    • The opening comments clearly state that this VfD is on the chapters and the "individual verses subpages" - SimonP July 5, 2005 17:59 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a church. In addition, public-domain religious texts belong on Wikisource. Very few religious verses deserve their own articles (maybe such as John 3:16). Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think every chapter of the Bible deserves an individual article; but Wikipedia is not paper. I also agree with those who say that Wikipedia is not for theological exegesis. No per se rule can exist, I think; the litmus test can only be whether an informative, neutral article about the text can be written: and here we have a fait accompli. Smerdis of Tlön July 1, 2005 15:12 (UTC)
• Delete, of no worth jamesgibbon 1 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
• Keep Discussion of the religious texts of all of the world's religions are appropriate for an encyclopedia. The Bible, Quaran, Gita, Tao te Ching, and many others all contain content that has had hugely significant historical and social impact. I cannot imagine an encyclopedia that did not extensively cover these. It's reasonable to organize content by the chapters and verses of these texts since this is how most people refer to them. Tobycat 1 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
  • Organizing by verses has the unfortunate consequence of implying that every single verse of the whole text merits an article, which is the principle that some editors wish to establish, but which is simply untrue of large swathes of the text. Of course, this is the discussion of the article on the chapter, not an individual verse. However, if you support articles on individual chapters of religious texts, let alone individual verses, you should vote "keep" at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Akilam Two, which is the deletion discussion of an article on a chapter of a religious text. Currently, none of the editors who have voted "keep" here have voted "keep" in that discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-01 19:51:17 (UTC)
    • Enough has been written about the New Testament that there is something to say about pretty much every verse. So far I've worked through most of the first four chapters of Matthew. Based on only a half dozen, of the many hundreds, of sources I have been able to write two or three paragraphs of content on almost all of them. There are some verses about which there doesn't seem to be much to say, (e.g. Matthew 4:14) but these are few and far between. We might as well include them to have a well organized structure. The same does not seem to be true of Akilam Two and its cohorts, which are all very short and it has yet to be demonstrated that larger articles can be written on the subject. Since there are only a couple sentences on each verse, there is no reason they should not be merged. The same might be true of other parts of the Bible. In the discussion at John 20:16 I already noted that the verse by verse approach should perhaps only be confined to the Pentateuch and Gospels. - SimonP July 1, 2005 20:08 (UTC)
      • Enough has been written about the New Testament — I agree that there are certain specific parts of the text that have generated controversy and detailed analysis by many people. Indeed, I was the one who wrote primacy of Simon Peter describing the controversy centring upon a single word in a single verse. However, it is important to reflect the actual secondary sources, and the secondary sources do not show an even attention to all verses of all chapters of all books of both Testaments. The attention is decidedly uneven. There are verses even in the Pentateuch and Gospels that have simply drawn no attention whatever. Blanket principles that every verse, or even every chapter, deserve articles, are wrong; and structures that, on "symmetry" or "good organization" or "completeness" grounds, encourage filler articles (or, worse, original research) for the individual verses that secondary sources effectively do not touch upon, are bad ones. (I didn't call the article that I wrote Matthew 16:18, 10th word, notice. Not only is that a bad structure that encourages fillers "for symmetry", that's not the common name of the subject.) It's worth noting that most secondary sources are structured in terms of groups of verses, rather than in terms of individual verses. It's daft to treat Matthew 6:9 to Matthew 6:13 individually, for example; rather than treating it as Lord's Prayer. (Again, note that the common name of the subject is not the verse number.) The same goes for the Sermon on the Mount, the Parable of the talents, and many others. All of those are from the gospel that you are writing about, notice, and you will end up duplicating them, badly. Your individual verse-by-verse approach is wrong. Sermon on the Mount shows that even chapters need to be grouped together. Uncle G 2005-07-01 21:20:19 (UTC)
        • Most of the secondary sources I have been using go verse by verse (AB, Tyndale, NCB). Though they do sometimes group related verses or slow down and go word by word. Of course attention is not even, but I have yet to find a verse that none of the sources have anything to say about. I have also already run into the issue of duplication and found that is not much of a problem. The Biblical Magi are solely found in Matthew 2:1-18, but there is little duplication between the verses pages and that article. Similarly the Genealogy of Jesus article has little overlap with the first half of Matthew 1. I am about to start work on the Sermon on the Mount and have few concerns over duplication there. That article currently runs to some 4.2kb. Going by previous averages the total size of the series on the verses will be some 300kb. The series will no more duplicate the main page than Nancy Pelosi duplicates 109th United States Congress. - SimonP July 1, 2005 21:45 (UTC)

• Keep. If there's encyclopedic stuff to say about each of them, and merging them all together would create unworkably large articles, I don't see why they should not be kept. — Ливай | ☺ 1 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
  • The important part of that is if there is encyclopedic stuff to say. ~~~~
    • All right, if there are multiple consecutive chapters that don't seem to have much to say about them, I suppose they could be merged together into single articles. But I don't see what's unencyclopedic about providing summaries of a Biblical chapters if people are willing to write them. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. — Ливай | Ⓣ 1 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
• Comment The KJV is crown copyright. I have therefore had to add a copyvio notice to the article because someone duplicated an entire chapter of it within the article. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
  • And I have reverted you. Wikipedia falls under American law, UK crown copyright rules do not apply. - SimonP July 1, 2005 20:31 (UTC)
    • Actually someone else reverted you before I got there. - SimonP July 1, 2005 20:33 (UTC)
      • (two edit conflicts later) That was me. The KJV was written before copyright laws existed, so I don't see how it could be copyrighted. Oh, and keep, there's enough to write on bible chapters. JYolkowski // talk 1 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
        • I recommend that editors take a long, hard look at King James Version of the Bible, which describes the copyright status. (Wikisource, which takes public domain and GFDL works, has the full KJV text, notice.) KJV is a special case in copyright law, and superficial arguments both about it being "crown copyright" and about it "preceding copyright laws" are flawed, as the situation is more complex than either. Uncle G 2005-07-01 21:20:19 (UTC)
          • Agreed, in the UK the status of the KJV is a mix of confusing crown copyright regulations that are also almost certainly incompatible with EU law and the international treaties that the UK has signed. Fortunately, Wikipedia is based in the United States and is only beholden to U.S. copyright rules, so the legal status of the KJV in the UK should matter no more than the legal status of a fair use image there. - SimonP July 1, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
            • English law is quite simple to understand in this respect. EU law only applies because it is turned into UK acts of parliament as an uncontested semi-automatic process (involving an army of civil servants, quite often turning a 2 page EU law into a 50 page UK act). It is the crown which is sovereign, not parliament, and so crown copyright has absolute precedence. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
• Keep per Livajo. Many chapters of the Bible are deserving of individual encyclopedic articles. Many are not. Those with verifiable NPOV information should be kept. Others can be merged into their respective books until such information is contributed. Those concerned about "systemic bias" are advised to contribute articles about whatever they feel has been slighted. The importance of the Bible and its notable passages to an English-speaking audience need not be questioned. Dystopos 1 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
  • This VfD is not about notable chapters, but about whether all of them are worthy of seperate articles each. In which case your vote appears to be to merge and/or delete the (non-zero) number of articles which do not constitute worthyness. Could you clarify this?
    • That's not entirely true. I got here from John 15 which has sufficient notability and has already survived VfD. If there are articles qualifying for deletion, put them up individually for discussion here. If you want to create a policy, do so elsewhere. My vote remains "keep". Dystopos 1 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

• Let's not make too much of this discussion. We are indeed talking about Matthew 1 here. While comparisons to other articles and discussions are important to this discussion, we're still talking primarily about the article that was nominated for deletion. If you would like to work out a comprehensive deletion policy on religious texts in general, or even on the Bible in general, then let's talk about it in a separate discussion, and not in a single VfD discussion. NatusRoma 2 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

• If that is the case, I think the Matthew 1 article stands as a pretty good example of a notable passage with verifiable context. It focuses on inter-scriptural references and could benefit from more about how this passage has influenced history ("calculations" of the age of the earth, etc). Much could be done with it and it certainly does not qualify for deletion. If this discussion is indeed about one article, can we ask SocratesJedi to remove the tag from all the other chapters that currently bear the Vfd notice pending this vote? Dystopos 2 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

• No, this VfD is explicitely Matthew 1 and all similar articles - it says that as the section header. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)

• In my opinion it is inappropriate to make policy about article structure on VfD. Many of the chapters grouped under "and all similar articles" are very good articles, some have survived VfD already, and their qualifications for deletion need not be discussed again. The only thing "similar" about them are their names. If you want to propose a policy about how to rename, merge or restructure the articles, do it elsewhere. Dystopos 2 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

• Actually I (SocratesJedi) didn't post the VFD notice to all other similar articles, just to Matthew 1. Someone else added them. I didn't quite mean to question EVERY biblical chapter/quote page (that is, if we had one on John 3:16, It'd likely be appropriate), but the majority of them that do not have incredibly focused significance. -SocratesJedi | Talk 3 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

• Keep, but the full text has to be in wikisource. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
  • You are saying that even articles about verses such as And Ozias begat Joatham, and Joatham begat Achaz, and Achaz begat Ezekias are noteworthy, even though there is not much more that you can say other than that these are the verses? ~~~~ 1 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)
    • The articles I see not about single verses. Right now the voting if such article must be here at all. Surely, very small articles about very small pieces must be mercilessly merged. But what wrong with larger ones? They are not better, nor worse of Dungeons and Dragons articles in that they serve certain categories of people. mikka (t) 2 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a Bible-study session. --StoatBringer 1 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand the explanation of your vote. Could you clarify? Are you saying that all articles related to the Bible are inherently aimed at gaining new adherents to Christianity? I am truly baffled by the strength of the "no Bible articles" proponents. Although I am an athiest who generally bristles at the nonsense imposed upon our culture by religion, I find the existence of religion a legitimate academic and scholarly interest. Its impact on our culture cannot be understated. To ignore the substantial content of global religions makes no sense to me.Tobycat 2 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)
    • There are dozens of versions of the Bible, and dozens of Holy Books of other religions. Should Wikipedia host commentaries on all possible permutations? Also, scriptures are almost by definition open to interpretation, so any article is bound to be hopelessly subjective and controversial. If people wish to study the endless meanings that can be attributed to any Bible verse, there are plenty of churches willing to accomodate them. An encyclopedia should give the whole thing a wide berth. --StoatBringer 00:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT note that if these are kept, then articles on passages of the Chinese classics should always be kept, since they are more heavily referenced than any Bible passage ever written. (the Confucian classics are referenced everywhere for thousands of years, in billions of documents, as are other classics, and things such as "Spring and Autumn", "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", "The Art of War", etc) 67.68.64.213 2 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)
  • These aren't articles on Bible passages. They're articles on Bible chapters. Factitious July 2, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
• Delete all, wikipedia is not a soapbox or a church. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  • I'd like to think an encyclopedia can discuss religion without being a soapbox or a church. Factitious July 2, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
• Keep, culturally significant. Personal loathing of religion is not a reason to delete articles. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
  • They are not at VfD because someone has personal loathing of religion, indeed such a claim is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. They are here because the division into chapters is semi-arbitrary, and what is objected to is the fact that the chapters are not in themselves individually noteworthy, as opposed to the stories within, and across them. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

    I'm not naming names, but some of the votes here do seem to use personal aversion to religion as a basis for deleting. I don't see anything wrong with pointing it out. Gazpacho 3 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

• Keep the most commonly quoted ones and merge/delete the chapters to a bigger heading. --Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 2 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
• Delete why not just reference the history of the text here as any encyclopedia would do, then direct readers to actual text in some other library. Wikipedia is not such a library. If it is, why is there not a full text of Finnegans Wake, the Sears Catalogue, or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxay? It seems that entire books of the Bible are posted here to make some other sort of underhanded NPOV statement.

--ColoradoZ July 2, 2005 04:27 (UTC)

• Delete It's hard to believe that every single bible chapter deserves an entry any more than every single movie or every single musical group. Entries should certainly be created for the stories of creation, the great flood, the story of Job, etc. but not by mechanically describing the contents of every chapter. Such detailed analysis is only asking for original research. --Tysto 2005 July 2 04:46 (UTC)
  • comment the body of existing theological exegesis, historical and literary analysis, and cultural influence of every scrap of biblical literature is sufficient to eliminate the invitation for original research. I agree that articles should only be created when sufficient verifiable NPOV material is contributed. There's no reason to expect that it couldn't, however. Dystopos 2 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)
    • comment but people don't do research on a single chapter, they do research on topics such as "the genealogy", "birth of Jesus", etc. not on "Matthew 3". The only people who approach it as "Matthew 4" etc. are bible-study-groups and bible-commentaries, which is not what Wikipedia is.~~~~ 2 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
• Keep this content out of the principle that it is notable and can be encyclopedic. I'm less happy with the execution though, because the division into verses (and, to a lesser extent, chapters) is arbitrary in many cases. A treatment of passages would make more sense to me. — mark ✎ 2 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
  • But this VfD is about the execution, it is not about the treatment of areas, such as Magi, or Birth of Jesus. It is explicitely about articles for each chapter - about the semi-arbitrary division. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)
    • My vote is about the content, which is encyclopedic. I'm not saying that we should treat one passage and not another one, I only wanted to say that I would cut it up differently. — mark ✎ 3 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
• Keep. There's plenty to say about individual chapters of the books of the Bible. Matthew 1 has encyclopedic content and good references. Factitious July 2, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
• Keep; in the last two thousand years there has been a massive amount of commentary on bible chapters, much of which is of encyclopedic value, and I see no reason why we can't have articles on individual chapters in this book, one of the most influential--like it or not--in the history of civilization. Antandrus (talk) 3 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

• Keep; the bible and all of its elements do indeed belong in an encylocpedia because they are works of historical importance. regardless of the veracity of the claims within the bible, the history of the book alone and its different books belong to history and should at least be acknowledged as such
• Keep. Not even a legit vote as I see it. Wait until 2006 and then try again. We can't do this every month. Everyking 3 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)

• It has become more clear to me that this sort of thing has been voted on before, but I had no knowledge that this was the case before I listed it for VfD. Just as someone put notices on all relevant articles that they were all being questioned via Matthew 1, we should record their survival of this VfD (which I presume will be the case at this point) when it becomes official to prevent this from happening again. -SocratesJedi | Talk 3 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

• Delete. Too much detail. There could be tens of thousands of these things if you think of the whole Bible. What if all other holy books of various religions were next, like the Koran? Now you are looking at millions of articles like this. - Preaky 3 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)
  • comment For reference, the KJV(AV) Bible has 1,189 chapters. [4] and the Koran has 114. If we use Matthew 1 as an example, it's using about 12KB of server space. An article that size on every chapter of the Bible and the Koran would add up to less than 16MB. I don't see anything to be afraid of. Dystopos 3 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
• Keep David Sneek 3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic topic (there's no question about verifiability or notability here) I'm quite sure the editors in question have the good sense to merge the verse analysis for the "less important" chapters. Well-referenced. Sam Vimes 3 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)
• Keep. Well documented articles about notable subjects should be encouraged. --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 03:50 (UTC)
• Keep but merge to Matthew (bible), go by chapter rather than by verse. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:52 (UTC)
• keep It is in Wikipedia's hope that we become ridiculously comprehensive. High volume arguments have no standing. Compare with the current development of an entire Simpson's episode guide. lots of issues | leave me a message 4 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)
• Keep. The only argument I can see for removal is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox; however, given the Bible's (or the Qu'ran, or holy book of your choice rom a major religion) historical relevence and importance, this seems like a no-brainer. Most Bible chapters have something unique about them, and each one has probably affected more people over time than, say, individual pokemon. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus (3-4 in favour of deletion). Article is kept (default). Scimitar 6 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

[edit] LSOL.com

Web page advertising Groeck 1 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

• Keep I've modified the page so that it's up to par as a stub. The site is notable in its field, as there really aren't very many Web sites (let alone train sites) that can claim to have been founded in 1995. Suggest move to Large Scale Online with redirect. -Harmil 1 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)

Mine was founded in 1995 too, but it doesn't have an article on it here... :-) *Dan* July 5, 2005 20:44 (UTC)

mine was too (though the Wayback Machine entry only shows it since 1997 for some reason), but your page and mine are personal home pages. If we were very notable, then perhaps that would be a worthy article, but we're not. That said, LSOL.com is not a personal home page. -Harmil 6 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

• Keep. Verified stub for a notable website. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
• Delete This is nothing more than advertising for a hobbyist site that requires paid subscription for membership. It is not especially notable; it doesn't rank high in a Google for garden trains. --Tysto 2005 July 2 04:53 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory for paid services. Alexa stats: "Traffic Rank for lsol.com: 2,398,396; Not in top 100,000." utcursch | talk July 2, 2005 07:47 (UTC)

I'm confused by this (but new, so willing to learn). Mind you, I have no connection with the original creation of this article nor with the site, but I would think that being a commercial site would have no bearing on notability. This site is unarguably the oldest Web site that deals with this topic, and that seems to me to be notable. If it were free, that would not change the status of the notability, and Wikipedia doesn't seem to shy away from listing The Wall Street Journal or EverQuest based on their being commercial, subscription-based services. Are those "nothing more than advertising", as Tysto says, or do we have some formula that relates degree of notability to degree of commercialism somewhere? I'll stay out of it from here on, but just wanted to see if people were thinking about this objectively, or if I was missing something. -Harmil 5 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:52 (UTC)
• Keep it. I agree with Harmil entirely. --Excession 5 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Has an Alex rank of 2,200,000 or so and is just a hobbyist site; WP:NOT a webdirectory. Being founded in 1995 is nothing special. -Splash 6 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

[edit] Host Signal Processing

The content in this new article is about a non-notable company. It's advertising. Oddly, the company being promoted has a different name than the article title. Tobycat 1 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
• Delete. Content doesn't even match title. Pburka 1 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. --Tysto 2005 July 2 04:56 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 6 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Department of Fun

Not part of building an encyclopedia Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 06:23 (UTC)

• Keep This page represents a legitimate and effective approach to two things essential to a successful encyclopedia: community building and skill development. Tobycat 1 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like Jaberwocky is the perfect candidate to have a day visit to the Department. Have you seen how many members there are? You should run to the page, or risk being used as the model for a game of "pin the tail on the angry deletionist" :P! Harro5 July 1, 2005 06:49 (UTC)
• Keep ... but it is part of building a community that builds an encyclopedia. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
• Keep - most of the games here are in fact related to encyclopedia-building, those few that aren't should be VfDed individually IMO. Bryan 1 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It helps us build an encyclopedia in the same way that having a break room or rec area helps a company succeed: we need the occasional diversion to keep us going and to prevent wikistress. The concept of fun is central to the identity of WP. It also has very strong community support... even Jimbo Wales is a member! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
• Comment I noticed that the nominator, Jaberwocky6669, is also listed as a member of the Department of Fun. He also has it under "Favorite links" at his user page [5]. This would seem to mean that he both supports it and wants to get rid of it. Very strange. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 09:21 (UTC)
  • I know what I'll be doing come next April 1st... Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)
• Keep I suspect the debate is related to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Checkers Hiding 1 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)
• Keep - possibly delete nominator for being a partypooper? Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)
• POssibly delete nominator for being a party pooper. I'm just raising some eyebrows trying to enact some change. Banning me would be like firing someone from a job at the drop of a dime. It creates bad morale! Duh... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 14:05 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should have added a smiley? "Deleting a user" is not the same as banning - I was under the impression that there was a section in WP:FUN called "Users for deletion". Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
• Keep. Important community building. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• Keep. Neither is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, but it's widely accepted. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)
• Keep. ^---- WP:POINT! WP:POINT! hehehe. Project2501a 1 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
• Keep. Harumph! MicahMN | Talk 1 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
• OH I'm SuCH AN IDIOT!!!! Since I nominated this page can I ask for it to be withdrawn?? Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 18:05 (UTC)
• Delete. No one else will ever agree with me on this, but I really think this (a) is not part of building an encyclopedia and (b) only attracts more of this cruft. See Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex for an amazing double-VfD on the same grounds (deleted, and then deleted from BJAODN!) and the aforementioned Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Checkers. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
• Delete. Unprofessional and inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a toy. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)
• Keep - it's in the correct namespace, even. humblefool® 1 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
• Delete, a pretty unedifying read jamesgibbon 1 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
• Keep; in order to build an encyclopedia you need a healthy community, and this kind of thing is a big part of it. Antandrus (talk) 1 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
• Delete as before. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a community to that end. If you want to have fun outside of developing the encyclopedia, please meet up on other servers. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. I agree that community building is part of the wikipedia experience but do we have to resort to using online games to achieve this? JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)
• Do we want to overwork everyone? Why not have a little fun? KEEP. --Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 2 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
  • Anyone editing Wikipedia is at a computer connected to the internet. They can easily connect to any game server online and play chess or checkers or whatever they choose, with the added stress relief of being away from Wikipedia. Companies have break rooms because their employees can't take 15 minutes off and drive to the nearest air hockey establishment. Wikipedians can take 15 minutes off and connect to the nearest game server far more easily. If they could do that without taxing Wikipedia's servers, all the better. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
• Keep. utcursch | talk July 2, 2005 07:43 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:13 (UTC)
• I liken wikigames to the building of the great pyramids. Whole temporary towns were built to house, feed, rest, and entertain the workers. Jaberwocky6669 July 5, 2005 04:28 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was move and delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

[edit] Southern-eastern

This two-sentence article attempts to describe the location and nickname of a suburban area around Botany Bay. I think this article should be deleted because: (a) the content is trivial and belongs as a note in an article on the city Botany Bay instead of being a stand-alone article and (b) the title is very general and could be used to describe countless suburban areas in relation to their urban cores. Tobycat 1 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)

• speedy --MarSch 1 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to South-eastern Sydney. I added the Template:Sydney_regions - this stub is part of a series on regions of Sydney. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
  • I agree with your suggestion to move if the original were deleted. I think the title is too general to redirect to a specific destination.Tobycat 1 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep (14-2). Scimitar 6 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

[edit] Science High School

Six edits to get to the address as the only content. Does not meet speedy criteria so here we are. Vegaswikian 1 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)

• Expand or die! Yuk. If this thing expands, my vote is keep. If not, delete. Harro5 July 1, 2005 06:46 (UTC)
• Does meet speedy criteria. Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)
  • Did meet speedy criteria, but someone's wasted their time writing it. Strong delete not notable school. Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)
• Keep. The speedy was premature as the school as clearly identified and as such the article is easily expandable. As it happens, an award-winning movie director is filming a documentary called "American Teen" based on the class of 2006 at that school. Nanette Burstein walked away with numerous major awards for her documentary On the Ropes and the movie was nominated for an Oscar in 1999. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 12:10 (UTC) (See comments and apology below for my error) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
• Keep and await (or hope for) further expansion. Since this school will be featured in a documentary which makes it more notable than the average school. If not just merge it with Newark or the appropriate school district. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Unfortunately, being seen on TV does count as notability in today's world. — P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)
• Keep. Verified stub. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)
• Keep, see w:Schools/arguments. The article has an interesting history. Kappa 1 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
• Wait there's something odd about this name. The external link points to Newark High School, but the article is named "Science High School". So which is it? That needs to be clarified in the page. If that's done, I vote to keep. :) — RJH 1 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)
  • LOL good point RJHall. It looks like Newark High School is not the same as Science High School, Newark. The article has been rewritten, people may wish to reconsider their votes. Kappa 1 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I screwed up and mixed the schools. The article is now in any case a perfectly good stub, thanks to other editors, but I think those who consider notability to be a significant criterion in such cases should review their votes. My apologies for getting the schools mixed up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
• keep and please stop using vfd for cleanup Yuckfoo 1 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
• Keep. Spork. —RaD Man (talk) 2 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pineapple. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:53 (UTC)
• Keep Please don't nominate any more schools as you will be wasting your time and other peoples' time. CalJW 2 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. The external links provided by Kappa promise an interesting possibility of expansion. I'm also curious as to why the initial author blanked the article. Though far from perfect, it was an interesting start. DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
  • At a guess, it might have been more than one person, using a school IP. Kappa 2 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs expansion, but legitimate article. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
• Keep. At this time it is a good start for a school article. Unfocused 6 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

[edit] tea-sucking née Tea Sucking

It's hard to believe this is anything other than a neologism Bovlb 2005-07-01 06:38:37 (UTC) *Delete. Unencyclopaedic, subtrivial teacruft. — P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

• Strong delete, non-notable, non-encyclopedic, teacruft, vanity, joke, nonsense, and all that. — JIP | Talk 1 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
  • Weak keep after the rewrite. Should be renamed to Tea sucking though. — JIP | Talk 2 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
• Delete: what JIP said, plus the photo isn't much cop either. -- Hoary July 1, 2005 06:58 (UTC) PS What Uncle G writes below is most interesting; if he or somebody else would care to rewrite the article accordingly, I might well change my vote. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 01:34 (UTC) This is now a first-rate article on what is clearly a most noteworthy subject, so keep, of course. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 07:16 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, I'd like to point out that this article doesn't qualify for Speedy Deletion. Arguments for Keep: It's not neologism, it is something that people actually do. It may not be relevant to your life, but it is to many others. It has the potential to be encyclopaedic (though not if deleted). It's not vanity, because it's not about a person, nor was it created by a Tea Sucker. It's not a joke, nor nonsense. This is something that many people actually do, and this is a good place to collect information about why and how. I accept a more flattering photo could help, but I think the current one does well to convey the emotions involved when sucking on a tea bag. -- grlea Strong Delete Someone has completely rewritten the original article to now be about Tim Tam Slams, and variants thereof. Firstly, Tim Tam Slams are most commonly performed with coffee, not tea, and I've never heard of them being done with tea, and a quick survey of my office shows no one else has heard of people using tea either. Secondly, I've never heard Tim Tam Slamming called Tea Sucking before, though the term Tim Tam Slam is well-known to me and in the circles I move in. If the new content does have a place on Wikipedia (as, strangely, a lot of people seem to think it does), it should probably be under Tim Tam Slam. Tea Sucking is something altogether different. I would prefer if the original content were restored and the VfD page reset to monitor the desire for a page that really is about Tea Sucking (as opposed to Tim Tam Slams), but this probably isn't going to happen. My recommendation is that the current content be moved to Tim Tam Slam and we forget the whole sorry Tea Sucking saga. I think I'm done with trying to contribute to wikipedia. Might go start a blog instead. grlea 5 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I think the guy in the picture is totally fakin' it. A lot of them do, ya know. Sure, they have the string and the little tag hanging out of their mouth, but it isn't connected to a tea bag at all. It probably isn't connected to anything. I think the article should cover this problem, because it's ruined a few perfectly good marriages and carpets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 15:20 (UTC)
  • Since no-one has heretofore mentioned speedy deletion, or tagged the article as such, I am mystified by this comment by the author of the article. Uncle G 2005-07-01 16:14:00 (UTC)
    • I brought up speedy deletion because of the speed at which the article was marked for deletion. Within less than an hour of its creation it had a VfD page with three Delete votes. grlea 4 July 2005 23:17 (UTC) (Edited: grlea 5 July 2005 07:53 (UTC))
      • Comment: Speedy deletion is immediate deletion without listing on VfD. Obviously, this is not speedy deletion, or else this vote page would not exist. The personal attacks have been removed from your comment. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
        • Sorry if you were offended. They were only jokes, not attacks. grlea 5 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
      • Actually, there are a lot of us that spend out time watching New Pages and listing bad articles for deletion. I'm sorry if you take it personally, but if you've ever read VfD you would see that we have a veritable torrent of crap that we have to delete here. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
• Delete, but also Bjaodn, especially the image Keep after rewrite; never heard about it, though Lectonar 1 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)
• Comment yeah, see, I think of the sexual slang phrase Tea baggin'. I hope your familiar with that word. If it is kept then maybe a disclaimer saying that the words are not related should be used... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:10 (UTC) Wow, I just got through re-reading grlea's eloquent argument and I have this to say: This is the kind of user that WP needs more of. Someone who can understand the fact that just because a topic isn't encyclopedic to some doesn't mean that it isn't encyclopedic to all! This kind of person can fulfill one of WP's goals: to not be ethnocentric! I change my vote to keep
• Delete per the above. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 14:03 (UTC) Okay, not per the above. But I'm afraid that this is little more than a circular definition (tea sucking is the sucking of tea, yes?) so delete as unencyclopedic. I suppose a redirect to tea would be reasonable. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 17:03 (UTC)
• Delete. Google revealed very few hits that actually referred to this practice. I'm sure some people do it, but, so? When I was a kid, I ate Quik out of the container, but I don't think Quik eating should be in Wikipedia. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 14:53 (UTC) After rewrite, merge per Tysto; great suggestion. Dcarrano July 3, 2005 17:21 (UTC)
• If WP has the room to encompass every single high school, rock song, antique shop in the world then it has the capacity to encompass all known human practices. Google should not be a final answer! Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 15:08 (UTC)
• We wouldn't want to become Google now would we? Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 15:10 (UTC)
• This article doesn't cite sources, its proponents (the author and 1 other) have proferred no sources, and there are no sources to be found documenting the practice of teabag sucking as is described in the article; all of which make this article original research. However, there are sources to cite for tea sucking, a practice different to what is was described in this article. People have written (semi-serious) analyses of this. See this report of the Tim-Tam Slam, this one, this report on sucking tea through various other types of biscuit and this discussion of tea sucking using Tim-Tams. Delete unless the article is completely rewritten with cited sources to cover the actually documented practice, in which latter case Weak Keep, since the Tim-Tam Slam, specifically, is already covered at Tim Tam and there might not be enough to warrant a separate article (rather than a simple redirect to Tim Tam) here. Uncle G 2005-07-01 16:14:00 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, since it has been totally re-written from a dubious article about a non-notable practice to a well researched article about a different practice that I guess squeeks in with adiquate notability. -- Infrogmation July 2, 2005 12:55 (UTC)
• Delete. not-notable...not verified as a bona-fide phenomenon. Tobycat 1 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)
• Delete Neologistic nonsence. Keep very odd to an American, but apparently very real. --Habap 1 July 2005 18:36 (UTC) Merge with Dunk (biscuit) as noted below. --Habap 5 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, original research, unencyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect new version into Dunk (biscuit): this is a special case of that topic. — Gwalla | Talk 4 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains no information other than that which is obvious from the title and some random OR crap. Clear case of article sucking. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
• Keep, but better photo and less informal tone required jamesgibbon 1 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
• Delete Not all personal habits are encyclopedic. No citations. Sounds like an inside joke. I now suggest that Tea-sucking be merged with Dunk (biscuit) and that the article be rewritten to avoid the UK/US biscuit problem, perhaps as Food dunking. The practices are very common around the world, have been studied semi-seriously, and have peculiarities that deserve note. --Tysto 2005 July 3 16:52 (UTC)
• Since the consensus is clearly heading towards delete, I've Rewritten the article giving the above citations, to see whether Hoary will change xyr opinion. Uncle G 2005-07-02 05:53:04 (UTC)
  • Excellent work, Uncle G. Yes, I've changed my opinion, and my vote. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 07:30 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This has become a strong cultural phenomena in Australia and is one of the ways that Australians (who feel constantly under pressure from US culture) define themselves. This explains the referance to Australia Day. Americans do unusual things on July 4 to state their nationality - pie-eating etc. This has as much cultural resonance.--Porturology 2 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)

Huh? Pure fantasy, best spelled with a "B" and an "S". I recommend that readers ignore the weirdo post above. Tannin (And I'm as Australian as anyone.)

Yes, boss. I mean, no, boss. Australia is a large nation, surely large enough to have several societal divisions: e.g. between those who do and those who don't don't demonstrate non-Americanness on 4 July, and those who do and those who don't do odd things with biscuits and tea. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 14:03 (UTC)

"Australia is a large nation" The accuracy of this statement is disputed. ;-) --Tysto 2005 July 3 16:40 (UTC)

• Yes, but your profile says your a Mexican which explains a lot. The SMH, particularly Column 8 has run articles on this as an Australian day activity by expats.--Porturology 2 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite. Great job, Uncle G! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 2, 2005 10:20 (UTC)
• Keep. Never done it myself, but have heard that replacing tea with port adds to the experience. The rewrite makes the article encyclopedic - exactly the cultural info that deserves to be in wikipedia.--Takver 2 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
• Delete. What a load of trivial, non-notable crap. Should have been speedied. Tannin 2 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
• This is certainly a fair dinkum practice, but is tea-sucking actually the correct term? I've certainly never heard it referred to as such - although I can offer no alternatives. Tea-sucking sounds very infelicitous. However, if no alternative name is suggested, I still believe the article should be kept-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 2 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)

• Upon discovering dunk (biscuit), I now believe tea-sucking should be merged therewith.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 5 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

• I've heard of it here in the UK (and highly reccommend it), although never by this or any other name. Keep nevertheless, a notable practice/phenomenon. the wub "?/!" 2 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
• Emphatic keep. An interesting practice, and an interesting article. BlankVerse ∅ 2 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)
• As nominated, my vote would have been to delete as a neologism. The article is now completely rewritten and does not refer to the same subject. It's now an interesting article about an unusual practice. Keep.-gadfium 2 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is still a wildly non-encyc, not-notable article. To suggest that it originated in Australia is so other-planetary as to defy description. This is just one of those things that people do - it does not warrant an article any more than Putting on socks does. (But that was still an impressive effort by Uncle G).-Splash July 2, 2005 20:30 (UTC)
• Keep significant social practice, emerging to prominance in the 1990s, just around the time that a major US firm bought Arnotts out actually. Fifelfoo 3 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

• Oh, please! I was sucking tea through biscuits before I got to primary school, about 20 years ago. And I have not a shadow of a doubt that people have been dipping biscuits in cups of tea for centuries.-Splash July 3, 2005 02:28 (UTC)

• Yes, but are there media articles discussions and record attempts about your biscuit sucking. Have a look at some of the links in the article and try "tim tam slam" on google.--Porturology 3 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
• I emphatically do not accept that www.nicecupofteaandasitdown is a benchmark for establishing encyclopedic note! Along similar lines, neither is toxiccustard.com. Not every page on the web is authoritative - the overwhelming majority are not! Number of hits on Google is, IMHO, best used for establishing lack of notability — something like putting on socks gets 593000 hits, but you're not going to suggest that needs a WP article....are you? -Splash July 3, 2005 15:29 (UTC)

• After further thought on this article, I was prepared to vote delete, as it just doesn't seem that unique a phenomenon. That was, of course, until I saw dunk (biscuit). If that is deserved of an article so is tea-sucking (though I maintain that is incorrect terminology).-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 3 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

• Keep now it's been rewritten. J.K. 3 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. I'm not convinced that this is more notable than any other method of drinking tea, but I could be wrong. After all, if the event in Croydon is true, it might suggest some notability. — P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
• Keep, as re-written. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
• Keep I like the new article too... Jaberwocky6669 July 5, 2005 02:52 (UTC)
• Keep I've only recently discovered that there's a name for this (its also great with plain milk!) and I'm glad its in wikipedia. An An 5 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

• Move/Redirect The article as it currently exists does not appear to be the article that got VFD. It's pretty obvious from the way votes have slid from all delete to mostly keep. I'm tempted to vote delete since an article shouldn't be edited while in VfD status and thus we should vote for what it looked like, but I do like my TimTamSlam, so I vote move. Aaron Brenneman 5 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

"You are welcome to edit this article..." Jaberwocky6669 July 5, 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Except it wasn't really "edited". It was effectively deleted and replaced with completely new content on a wholly different topic. grlea 5 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

Which brings a new question: Since the article has changed completely and everyone seems to agree on its existence doesn't that make this VFD unnecessary? Jaberwocky6669 July 5, 2005 23:35 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

[edit] Ravi raj

Stereotypical vanity page. "I did this, I'm this kind of guy, I like that..." Delete. Harro5 July 1, 2005 06:44 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Sietse 1 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Thue | talk 1 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
• User:JIP is a Finnish man who was born in the 1970s. He's your average, bog-standard, run-of-the-mill, common-or-garden guy who no one cares about. Delete. — JIP | Talk 1 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)
• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:09 (UTC)
• Delete, although I must say, I too believe in a cool and happy life. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. These people should really be encouraged to get a user page though. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)
• speedy --MarSch 1 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
• Delete -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 16:56 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
• Delete --Tysto 2005 July 2 05:40 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)

[edit] No You

Non-notable band vanity article. Tobycat 1 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:09 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)\
• Delete I don't think you can have a reunion tour less than two years after your band originally formed. --Habap 1 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. --Tysto 2005 July 2 05:42 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Moher

Blatant vanity and non-notability. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 1, 2005 06:50 (UTC)

• Delete. VfD notice was removed once, keep an eye out. Fire Star 1 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable, vanity, vandalism by page author. jni 1 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)
• Delete because vanity (... he dresses as a Penguin and dances. :) ). Sietse 1 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
• Delete. Thue | talk 1 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)
• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:09 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a yearbook. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)
• speedy --MarSch 1 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity.-- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 16:55 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. --Tysto 2005 July 2 05:43 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Scimitar 6 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocoristic

WP:WINAD. This is only about the word hypocoristic. And its been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:08 (UTC)
• Do not delete please. The article can and should be expanded. Though short, it contains some information apart from the definition. Articles Nickname and Diminutive link to this article and work which I would like to do on them needs this link. Be patient please. I would be realy sorry if the article got deleted just because I do not have at the moment the time to expand it - if no one else does.--Georgius 1 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a short article about hypocoristics, not just a definition. Kappa 1 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
• Keep agree Pburka 1 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
• Strong keep, there's much that can be said about hypocoristics in an encyclopedia article. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 1 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I foresee a great encyclopedia article being written here. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
• Rename to Hypocorism. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:54 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 5 to "keep"; 4 to "delete"; 1 to "keep or move"; 2 to "keep or rename"; 2 to "rename"; 1 to "move"; and 1 to "redirect" - so 8 of 16 votes appear to accept "keep" as an option. A move to something like List of notable misnomers might be in order. -- BD2412 ^talk July 9, 2005 04:08 (UTC)

[edit] Misnomer

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is only about the word misnomer. It has already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)

• Delete as stated above. What's the point of having official policies that won't be followed? *sigh* Besides, it's already in wiktionary drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
• Delete or just link to Wiktionary. -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 17:00 (UTC)
• Keep. Deleting this page would leave a lot of red links. Pburka 1 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Solves redlink problem. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
• Please note: from the deletion process, "If a given title should never have an article, then remove all links to it." That's part of the process if delete is decided, and I don't think we're meant to worry about that here. I wouldn't keep a bad article just because it has links to it. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)
  • There are about 75 links to Misnomer. Clearly many editors thought that the title should have an article. Pburka 1 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone does a Houdini impression and manages, somehow, to write an article on misnomers. Remove all the links and do not create soft redirects. Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
• Keep, or move to List of misnomers. This would definitely be an interesting list, and not one that would appear in the Wiktionary. These contents shouldn't be lost simply on the reasoning that "It's already on Wiktionary!!!" --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
• Move as suggested by Brian0918, although I can see the irony of renaming this page. Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
  • Rename per above. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:55 (UTC)
• Either keep or rename. I found the list useful and informative. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
• Keep The goal of this article should be to explore the popular misnomers in the world. What impact may they have on politics? How does the media use them? How are they used in persuasion? This could be a great article with an insightful discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.244.253 (talk • contribs) 18:46, July 2, 2005

Good point.--Jyril July 2, 2005 19:08 (UTC)

• Keep and expand to a proper encyclopedic article.--Jyril July 2, 2005 19:04 (UTC)
• Rename to List of misnomers. carmeld1 4 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
• Weak rename on the odd chance something worthwhile might be written. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
• Keep needs to be expanded though. --Vizcarra 8 July 2005 21:04 (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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Fit For Battle

Delete. Not notable. Bubamara 1 July 2005 07:07 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. Tobycat 1 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)
• Delete. Bandcruft. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
• Delete Why would anyone write something so completely absent of content about any subject, vanity or not? --Tysto 2005 July 2 05:46 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

[edit] Cale McDowell

Judging by the content of the article he is not notable. 128 google hits. Thue | talk 1 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)

• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:08 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --LeoTheLion 1 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
• Delete, if any real evidence that this isn't vanity, I would say it would need to be cleaned up. MAJORLEAGUESOCCERFREAK777

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

[edit] Niggardly

WP:WINAD. This is about the word, and an etymological tangent about the slur does not make it encyclopedic. And it's at Wiktionary already. Delete. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

• Keep the guy who resigned over it makes it notable. Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
  • So make it a redirect to him. This cannot be more than a dicdef, so delete. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 14:01 (UTC)
• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:08 (UTC)
• Keep notable word. NSR 1 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Dunc Martpol 1 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)
• Keep. Its sound is somewhat like how people have been chased out of town or shot for being pedagogues. Should be expanded if possible. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Dmcdevit. It isn't a particularly notable word, nor one which has very much bearing on modern culture. I'm fine with it just being in wiktionary, and any other place that deals specifically with language. --Qirex 2005-07-01 13:00:59 (UTC)
  • user has 4 edits.
    • Gee, I'm sorry, must have missed the page that explained that elitism is official protocol and policy. Thanks for adhereing to that other policy I must have missed, the one about never signing and timestamping, whoever you are. --Qirex 2005-07-02 05:26:48 (UTC)
• Keep, linguistic controversies are encyclopedic. Kappa 1 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)
  • Actually, reread it, there is no "linguistic" controversy. That is the point of the article: to use etymology to prove the distinctness of the two words. Let me quote from the policy: "It's fine to add a couple of lines of etymology to an existing article (or disambig), but an article shouldn't solely consist of etymology."
    • OK, controversies are encyclopedic. Kappa 1 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)
      • Well, that's my point. If you want a David Howard, go ahead and move the stuff there. No one would look for that in "Niggardly". The controversy may deserve an article, but not the word. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)
        • "Niggardly" is exactly where I'd look for it. Kappa 2 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Kappa Ryan 1 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
• Keep because it's a word which has caused genuine controversy. I remember when that happened, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 15:26 (UTC)
• Keep. The controversy over the word is notable. *Dan* July 1, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
• Merge to nigger, where the same subject matter is also covered. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent article. Gamaliel 1 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Nigger ~~~~ 1 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)
• Keep. Good little article. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)
• keep please it is not a dictionary definition its an article and definitely dont merge it Yuckfoo 1 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
• Keep. –Hajor 1 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a word. It can never be a more than a definition at this time. The Howard anecdote is interesting, but belongs elsewhere. There is no controversy here anymore than there is a controversy between people confusing the word "duck" and the word "fuck". General illiteracy isn't a sufficient reason for an article on a single word. Glaucus 2 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
• Keep notable and controversial word. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
• Though the Howard anecdote is off-topic a little, it still seems like the best place to mention it (and it should be mentioned somewhere). So keep unless a better place to merge/redirect is found. DO NOT redirect to nigger, as that would only reinforce the notion that the words have a link that is more than coincidental. -R. fiend 2 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)
• Keep This sort of article is a better thing to reference if you want to send someone an explanation of the word than a dictionary entry. --Tysto 2005 July 2 05:54 (UTC)
• Keep. This is proper encyclopedic, not dictionary-style article of a word.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:23 (UTC)
• Keep, do not merge. More than simply a dicdef, controversies about this word are notable and linked to broad social concerns about the interpretation of language and identity. Xoloz 4 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
• Keep per Xoloz. Important little article. carmeld1 4 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
• Keep Article contains specific information on topic of importance. Agree with previous judgement to not redirct to nigger as far as through the Wiktionary, or "See also" section. Redircetion as related to the David Howard anecdote is appropriate. 5 July 2005 4:45 (PST)
• Keep I looked for this on Wikipedia specifically to find the entymology AND the Howard incident because I did not remember his name (see Kappa). Cddemaree 5 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article, hard to find Howard incident without it. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is informative. If someone is interested in the Howard incident, this is the natural place to look. Novacatz 6 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

[edit] Marit

WP:WINAD. It's a name dicdef. From the policy: "Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an article that is only about a word (such as a name) is not encyclopedic. The appropriate action would be moving it to Wiktionary." This has been transwikied, now delete. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)

• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:06 (UTC)
• Delete as stated above. What's the point of having official policies that ware not followed? *sigh* drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
• Delete -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 17:07 (UTC)
• Delete, does not belong on WP. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 1 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

[edit] Numinous

WP:WINAD. Already transwikied, and see no potential here. Delete. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:06 (UTC)
• Delete as stated above. What's the point of having official policies that ware not followed? *sigh* drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
• Delete -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 17:11 (UTC)
• Delete, does not belong here. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 1 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

[edit] Alan hughes

Article does nothing whatsoever to establish notability. Looks like your basic vanity article. The lowercase surname is also a pretty good smell of vanity. Delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 1 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, vanity. -- The Anome July 1, 2005 09:54 (UTC)
• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:06 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 1 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
• Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
• Delete, although I doubt that it's self-promotion, seeing as Hughes died in 2003. -Frazzydee|✍ 2 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:N degrees of separation

Pointless page that sees no activity whatsoever and doesn't do anything but sit there and take up massive amounts of system resources... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 10:05 (UTC)

• Oh yeah and delete Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 10:16 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm a little confused at Jaberwocky6669's strong lobby for this page's deletion despite his frequent participation. What's wrong with having a little fun associated with our great community? I disagree that this consumes a prohibitive amount of system resources. It is in the Wikipedia: namespace, which is appropriate. I see no reason for its deletion. -Tadanisakari July 1, 2005 10:21 (UTC)
• COmment Frequent participation? I created the page... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 10:26 (UTC)
• Keep. It's rather good fun. I'm also not convinced that it uses massive amounts of system resources. Silverfish July 1, 2005 10:41 (UTC)
• Keep. Jaberwocky's on a one-man deletion crusade today, it seems. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
• Delete - Not useful, interesting or notable. completely unencyclopaedic Adamn 1 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)
• Keep. - It actually looks more like an element for mapping out the maze of wiki links, finding dead ends, etc. that would serve a rather useful purpose. -- Natalinasmpf 1 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)

Oh yes, that is precisely the page's original intended purpose. Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 12:37 (UTC)

• Allright yeah I stop. It just seems like WP has ground to a slow crawl and I am a lil' restless cause Im somewhat of a wikiholic and I dunno Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 12:36 (UTC) Sorry
• Keep Let's not be stupid. siafu 1 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)
• P.S. and Imma big fat crybaby Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 13:25 (UTC)
• PS I've gone absolutely bonkers, this applies to my 'real life' Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 13:27 (UTC)
• Keep. Note that this is a pastime designed to provide light relief for Wikipedians, located in the Wikipedia: namespace. Thus, it does not need to be "encyclopedic". Whilst I don't want Wikipedia to become a general-purpose games site, this piece of encyclopedia-related fun appears to me to be completely harmless. -- Karada 1 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)
• Keep - because I think we're under attack from some evil empire that is trying to destroy the very foundations of Wikipedia. Yeah, yeah, it's the new software. Whatever. --Mothperson 1 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)
• Definitively keep this fun page. Karol July 1, 2005 23:52 (UTC)
• Delete, no encyclopedia development involved. See the WP:FUN VfD for further explanation. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic (even if in the namespace). JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)
• Keep. A little fun helps once in a while. utcursch | talk July 2, 2005 07:48 (UTC)
• Delete being an avid gamer myself I know there are millions of other sites out there. Else try wikicities. This simply doesn't belong on wikimedia projects. Waerth 2 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)
• Keep. It's really fun. --Jyril July 2, 2005 15:13 (UTC)
• Strong delete. There are countless websites where we may have fun. Wikipedia does not need to be one of those. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

[edit] Air karate

Unencyclopedic, perhaps even neologism. Fails google test. Tadanisakari July 1, 2005 10:11 (UTC)

• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:06 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, neologism -Harmil 1 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
• Delete: pointless neologism. By this definition, most normal karate practice is air karate (you only actually fight someone about 1/3rd of the time, and only after you've mastered the basics). Marblespire 1 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)
• Delete reference article doesn't even use the neologism. --Habap 1 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)
• Delete non notable neologism. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)
• Delete Unlike air guitar, air karate is karate. --Tysto 2005 July 2 06:05 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

[edit] Double seat brief

I found that an editor named Jasontb had added doubleseat briefs to the underwear article, added a picture of said briefs, set up an article for doubleseat briefs, linked everything to the BVD article, and then inserted a promotional link to Tiger Apparel in the BVD article. Stealth advertising of a particularly noxious kind. I don't see that doubleseat briefs deserve their own article when many other, better-known types don't get an article. If editors want to keep this article, then it's going to have to be stripped of promo material. Zora 1 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)

• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:05 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nomination. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

[edit] Double back brief

This article was created as part of an advertising campaign by Jasontb. I have been rooted it out of Underwear and BVD and I've put one other article, Double seat brief, up for deletion. Zora 1 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:05 (UTC)
• Delete ad -Harmil 1 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

[edit] French Antique Shop

Please God! Someone reassure me that WP won't be listing every antique shop in the world!? Bobbis 1 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:03 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's OK to include an entry on an individual shop as long as it's as NPOV as possible. However, keep a close eye on 68.14.54.107 for other new entries (e.g. his recent one on Trinity Yachts...) Martpol 1 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)
• Comment You mean I can create an article about every single shop? I'm gonna START TODAY WOO HOO! I live in a rather large city: pop. 50,000+ that equals: lots of shops! Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:16 (UTC)
• OK, no need to be sarcastic. I simply meant that if the shop is notable, and perhaps has an interesting history, then what's the problem? Of course there will never be an article of every shop in every city - just like there will never be an article on every song from every album, but some contributors take the time to write about particular songs and that's fine. Martpol 1 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• Delete, very few shops are notable and this one isn't. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 12:20 (UTC)
• Delete not notable / advertising. Tobycat 1 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
• Delete - promotional JoJan 1 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
• Delete nothing unique or notable about the shop. --Habap 1 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)
• Delete. *Not* as notable as your local high school, which is probably the bar we should set. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

[edit] Sandeep kumar

Non-notable vanity Naturenet | Talk 1 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)

• Delete Agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:23 (UTC)
• Delete not sure if it's vanity but it's definitely nn, as the article itself makes clear jamesgibbon 1 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
• Delete, self-admitted non-notable. — JIP | Talk 1 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)
• Delete Article excerpt: "His major achievments at present are none." I see no reason to disagree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 14:56 (UTC)
• DeleteIncMan July 1, 2005 17:29 (UTC)
• Delete - as his achievements are none JoJan 1 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
• Userfy Have Sandeep Kumar put this on his user page and then he'll have one achievement. --Habap 1 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)
• Delete. Difficult to call it vanity, but it is definitely non-notable.--Jyril July 2, 2005 19:01 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 21:48 (UTC)

[edit] Trepia

First paragraph states that this entry exist only as a central place to save info of this program. Ev. merge with Instant Messenger. Cate 1 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

• No vote. 13000 hits for Trepia, part of GAIM. This has the ring of expandability. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
• With further development this application could become a very sound Instant Messaging program with a large user base. But since its apparent demise, this seems unlikely to occur. In other words, vaporware. Delete as such. Redirect to Instant Messenger if necessary. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 14:00 (UTC)
• Delete. Paleovaporware: vapor that failed to materialize. Oh, don't forget original research/speculation ("appears to be") and an attempt to communicate (see bottom of article). As it never actually existed, it should not be merged with Instant Messenger. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge, per above. -Splash July 2, 2005 00:42 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a failed project archive --Tysto 2005 July 2 06:48 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 17:25 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Street railway station

I used this railway station recently, and I can tell you from direct first-hand personal experience there is nothing notable or even interesting about it at all. It's bad enough we have to have articles about every non-notable pokemon, school, etc. Maybe we'll at least be able to get rid of the non-notable stations. After all, the only people who'll miss them are the trainspotters... — P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)

• Keep. If we can have articles about every subway station, we should keep articles about railway stations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ok, let's delete some articles about non-notable subway stations too. Seriously. What is it about the completist nature of some Wikipedians that makes them want to iclude articles on every subway station, every Pokemon, every river, etc. instead of only the best, most important, most notable ones??? — P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)
    • For starters, the phrases "Wikipedia is not paper" and "If it's notable and has had an impact on a few thousand people, it's probably in our encyclopedia's domain. That's not to say we lack mainstream topics you'll find in Britannica, World Book, and Encarta. We generally meet or exceed their quality on those subjects. It's just we like to have a little bit of fun at the end of the day." Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
      • I've never understood that argument. I'd gladly delete articles on some "mainstream topics you'll find in Britannica, World Book, and Encarta" too. e.g. William IV of the United Kingdom was a pretty non-notable monarch, and no-one would really miss him if we deleted his article. The only I haven't nominated him is that I know that the completists would all vote to keep him and I'd lose. OTOH Silver Street station is such a dump that I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to keep it based on its own merits. — P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)
        • Comment: You see, to the dogmatic hyperpreservationists, "merits" are irrelevant. Only existence (or the possibility of existence: they're not big on verifiability either) matters. People who vote on articles after actually evaluating them are to be mocked and ostracized; they've already managed to drive RickK off. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
        • Comment: I can buy the idea of some people wanting to delete a railway station article--perhaps one could argue that they're not that interesting to anybody--but I find that suggestion of deleting William IV of the United Kingdom utterly baffling. Don't read it if you don't find it interesting, but why delete it? It defies reason. That goes beyond the parameters of the inclusionist/deletionist framework, I should hope we'd all agree that William IV is not deletion material by any stretch of the imagination. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 3 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)
          • Comment: Because William IV was not one of the most notable kings of the United Kingdom. I'd like Wikipedia to have articles on only the most notable Kings, only the most notable stations, only the most notable Pokemons, only the most notable schools, etc. Having articles about inferior kings, inferior schools, inferior Pokemons, etc. makes Wikipedia inferior. And you don't want that do you? — P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
          • Well this is where the problem begins. You say that William IV was "not one of the most notable kings of the United Kingdom." Leaving aside the question of whether a monarch is intrinsically notable (I think most people would concede that this is the case) you are stating your judgement of whether or not William was notable. And yet the article itself tells us all about his active role in walking into the House of Lords in the middle of a debate and proroguing Parliament in 1831. And in 1834 he became the last monarch to appoint a Prime Minister against the will of Parliament, when he chose the Tory Robert Peel to govern with a Parliament having a Whig majority. And you say this guy isn't notable? Surely some mistake! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
• CoMmEnT Yeah, the reason why every one wants to include every single school, train station, antique shop, fire hydrant, street sign, every song ever recorded, every business, company, corporation, every single insect in the world right now, every video game ever produced, every product ever manufactured, every building in which that product was manufactured, the definition of manufacture, the latin root for hand, every history about nothing, is because many wikipedia contributors lack topics to write about thus including non-notable things with the argument of inclusionism gives them that opportunity to contribute just like they see everyone else doing. Me I do nothing. That is all, goodday! Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
• Keep; people look up railway stations in encyclopaedias. Anyway, it's not possible to have "first hand experience" of the station's entire history and potential notability jamesgibbon 1 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
• Keep for the sake of completeness. Kappa 1 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
• Delete. Irrelevant minutiae. I wonder if some people would vote to keep an article on the Berkeley Amtrak station (a broken bench by the tracks under an overpass). — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
• Keep. Railway stations directly affect the daily lives of thousands of people. That should be enough.--Pharos 1 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
• Keep. Correct article about a valid subject, but it could be improved. I'm not interested in Pokemon or greek mythology, but we can't delete all articles we don't find interesting can we? RustyCale 1 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)
• Keep valid article of interest to some people even if they are trainspotters as P Ingerson dismisses them as. As a so-called completionist, I think that it is good that Wikipedia is becoming a comprehensive reference work as was initially intended. The concept that P Ingerson would delete what he describes as obscure kings and queens is deletionism taken to the nth degree and would be a ludicrous policy for any work aspiring to be an encyclopedia. Either we want to be a thorough reference work or we don't - if we don't then I will find other things to do with my time. As for RickK, his leaving had nothing to do with votes for deletion but was a dummy spit after he was blocked for 24 hours for breaking the 3-revert rule. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's nonsense! To be the best, most notable encyclopaedia, we should only have articles on the best, most notable subjects. Otherwise what's the point? Just because the Britannica people were stupid enough to include articles on every country, every king, etc. in their Encyclopædia, that's no excuse for us to follow their mistakes. Do we want Wikipedia to be better than Britannica or not? — P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
• Keep We keep all articles on train stations. That debate is over. CalJW 2 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, but imagine how much better Wikipedia would be if we kept articles on only the most notable railway stations, only the most notable schools, only the most notable Star Trek episodes, only the most notable countries, only the most notable ways of putting on socks, etc. The debate should never have been closed. — P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
    • Deleting the articles about Mauritius, Vanuatu, Finland, and San Marino because they are not the most notable countries would definitely not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 4 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
• Keep --SPUI (talk) 3 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)
• Keep. "I've recently used this railyway station" seems an odd reason to delete an article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 3 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've got nothing against railway stations in general, even the ones that I've used. For example, I'm proud to have contributed to the article on Gipsy Hill railway station, which is notable because of its historic architecture, including the LB&SCR's coat of arms set into the walls. That's a notable station, so it should stay. But I believe Silver Street station is not notable. Now, if anyone can rewrite the article to demonstrate notability, then I'll happily admit that I was wrong and change my vote to Keep. Just one tiny, little sign to show that Silver Street is more notable than an average station, that's all it would take. And so far, no-one's managed that. — P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)
  • Isn't it an unreasonable demand, though? You don't think it's enough that it's a railway station, you're asking for it to be more notable than "the average railway station". Well I have no idea whether it is more or less notable than that, but recall the case of William IV above. Participated in a constitutional crisis, prorogued Parliament in the middle of a debate, appointed a Tory Prime Minister against the wishes of a Whig Parliament, and the last monarch to exercise that prerogative. So your notability criterion is either extremely high or here we have demonstrable that fact that something that doesn't appear notable may later be shown to be notable. Notability isn't something to take that seriously. It's just a good rule of thumb that enables us to delete articles about bus drivers and the like. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
• Comment:, P Ingerson, I can almost (but not quite) follow you're argument on railway stations but saying that every Country schouldn't have an article? That's beyond the realms of imagination and reason. Are we making an encyclopedia here or not. I'm going to leave this conversation now before I overheat. --Celestianpower 4 July 2005 19:37 (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.

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

The result of the debate was move to Construction set. -- Jonel | Speak 03:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constructions set

Tagged for speedy but not a candidate. Hmm... I would say this looks like a notable kind of toy so I will say keep, although construction set might be a better title. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)

• Categorize. Take out the British spelling, and the article is a good start for the header for a category describing what are the criteria for being a construction toy. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

Umm, I think the 'British' spelling in there is just plain misspelling Those random double letters have no place on this side of the pond, either!-Splash July 2, 2005 00:44 (UTC)

I assumed it was British because of the way American 'Math' is British 'Maths'. nn; Almafeta 3 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

Ah, I see. IANALinguist, but I suspect we have the 's' because mathematics is always plural and Latin has a habit of indicating plurality in contractions (see e.g. LLB). Construction set on the other hand, would only have its plural right at the end, even in BE. -Splash July 4, 2005 00:07 (UTC)

• Redirect to construction set, which indeed is how the text itself refers to them; may be a simple typo in the title. Concept of the article seems fine. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
• Move to Construction set. -Splash July 2, 2005 00:44 (UTC)
• Cleanup by all means, then let's see if its a keeper or deletion candidate. This article is terribly written; no wonder it has been requested for deletion. [[206.72.11.46 4 July 2005 21:48 (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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 21:56 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever

• Strong Keep, valid part of wikipedia history. User:noname 7 Jul 2005-

There is no way that this page can contribute to Wikipedia, either in content or in keeping things civil and unbiased; this page, by its very nature, is biased and disruptive. The only possible thing that keeping this page on Wikipedia would do would be to stir up negative emotions. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)

• Keep, as the person who started this page in February 2004 after a conversation on IRC, it was originally "dedicated to whimsy." And as such, it is harmless. - Fuzheado | Talk 6 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
• Keep, it's the same kind of page as BJAODN. Besides, "This page is dedicated to edit wars with lame or silly causes, not to exhaustively documenting all the real and contentious edit wars", so wars that stir up negative emotions shouldn't end up being on it. --cesarb 1 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)
• leepDunc|☺ 1 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
• Delete (or keep as a section of BJAODN ) - too self-referential, making this Wiki-vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 13:51 (UTC)
  • In retrospect, this serves as a valuable object-lesson. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 14:15 (UTC)
• Keep, valid part of Wikihistory (wistory?) Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
• Keep but put that humour tag thing on it. I personally found parts of it hilarious, and I literally laughed out loud at least twice: "Is the cat depicted really smiling?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 15:03 (UTC)
• Keep keep keep o. m. g. PLEASE KEEP! --Mothperson 1 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not doing any harm in the Wikipedia: namespace. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
• Keep. It's useful to refer people to. David | Talk 1 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike Department of Fun, Wikichess, or BJAODN, this actually serves a purpose by giving editors some clue as to when any given edit war is just too petty. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)
• Keep; an extremely useful page for the community, and everyone who has even been in an edit war, thought about getting in one, or even witnessed one, ought to read it regularly as a means of maintaining perspective. Antandrus (talk) 1 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
• Delete- inherently POV ~~~~ 1 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

  It's not an article. Gazpacho

• Keep; it serves a purpose, and everyone who's ever been in or considered being in an edit war should read it. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
  • Keep - That, and it's funny as hell to read. Who writes that stuff? humblefool® 2 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
• Keep, educational for newcomers. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
• Keep... uh, per Gazpacho, yeah, that's the ticket... that and some people get their jollies from reading about utter stupidity, and I support the right of such people to have easy access to such material. 141.154.205.115 2 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)
• Keep Waerth 2 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• Keep! --KFP 2 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
• Keep! Mad funny! wich is good!BeefCake 2/7/05 8:48 AM
• Keep. A little fun is a good idea once in a while. *Dan* July 2, 2005 13:28 (UTC)
• Keep: These are good examples for new users of what not to do, and besides, some of them are quite funny, IMO. --IByte 3 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
• Keep: Maybe the person trying to get rid of this, is a user who started a lame Edit war himself. Pacific Coast Highway July 3, 2005 04:31 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator, who says "this page, by its very nature, is biased and disruptive," fails to get the point. Wikipedia pages are allowed to be biased. Encyclopedia pages are not. This page is useful for the way it documents the ridiculous problems that ensue when people attempt to make the encyclopedia POV. Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 16:54 (UTC)
• Keep it's funny and informative
• Strong Keep. Hedley 3 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Can we put this VfD page in BJAODN? --Phroziac (talk) 3 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
  • Nothing humorous about it. Almafeta 4 July 2005 07:07 (UTC)
    • Phroziac, I am sure Almafeta was doing this in good faith (WP:AGF I fell like a broken record, broken record, broken...)--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename to something more NPOV... What constitutes "lame!?" What is this!? Encyclopedia Dramatica or something!? -newkai | talk | contribs July 4, 2005 18:44 (UTC)
• Keep If we can have chess matches, wikistories, and/or BJAODN, we can certainly have this page.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)
• Keep, but with one stipulation: remove the biased remarks (i.e. Nancy Reagan is old) - the idea itself is funny, but let's avoid meanness) - User:Darkhawk 5 July 2005 22:56 EST
  • Old is baised?--Tznkai 6 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
• Keep; I've yet to see anyone upset by this page. The beauty of it is that most sides can, invariably, agree on what constitutes a lame edit war - the only difference is that they disagree which POV is the self-evident one and which one the lame one :-). It's in the wikipedia namespace, it amuses people, the only problem with it is people quietly sneaking in and trying to "correct" the topic under dispute... Shimgray 6 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
• Keep - we all need a good laugh Peregrine_AY 7 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The Death penalty to whomever dared try to delete this venerable WikInstitution.--Jpbrenna 7 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)
• Strong keep Aside from humor, the fact that some could potentially learn from these as "very bad examples" pushes my vote up to a strong keep. You (Talk) July 7, 2005 20:50 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 12:44 (UTC)

[edit] NESARA conspiracy theory

Seems to be a lot of nonsense Groeck 1 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

seems like you didn't take the time to investigate it before declaring VfD. Inigmatus

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs; adding to today's log. --cesarb 1 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)

• Keep Can you elaborate on what you mean, and especially on why that is grounds for deletion? I don't think you're referring to the "patent nonsense" classification, because it's not gobbledygook, and it's not something I made up. It's a conspiracy theory. The article is about the history and claims of the conspiracy theory. NESARA has more then 50,000 google hits, it has several articles written on it [6] [7], a movie about it [8], and NESARA's main proponent (Shaini Goodwin) frequently goes on the radio to promote it. It needs an encyclopedic entry for people hearing about it or doing research to go to get objective information. I can find nothing in the wikipedia guidelines for deletion that justifies deleting it. If you think I made it up, check my references. -- - sednar (talk · contribs)
• Keep. Needs some work (don't we all?), but manages to present both sides fairly well, and is an amusing conspiracy theory. --khaosworks July 1, 2005 05:43 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need every conspiracy theory to have its own entry. This is a joke anyway; there can't be anyone who actually believes this. But either way, it is not notable; it fits into the deletion category "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" (see WP:DP). There should be an entry for this under "conspiracy theories" or something with links to the website if people want to learn more about it -- I don't see the need for this much information.--csloat 1 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
  • Granted not every conspiracy theory deserves its own article, however, tell me what makes the NESARA conspiracy theory any different than the ones already with their own articles in WP? What criteria do those articles pass that renders them more favorable than the NESARA conspiracy theory? I submit that this article passes all the criteria used for those other articles. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

"there can't be anyone who actually believes this", but there are. I have met dozens (I am not one myself, far from it). Please, do a little research before you claim that nobody belives this - simply read the articles in the references section of the article, particularly from the Tacoma Tribune. Or at least, I'm sure you can think of historical examples of people who have believed even stranger things (Heaven's gate, Jim Jones). I know of several people who had given hundres of dollars to scammers promoting NESARA, and even a guy with stomach cancer who gave money in lieu of medical treatment (and later died). This is an "amusing conspiracy theory" as noted above, but it's also a proto-religion with deadly serious consequences that people need to know about. But DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, JUST CHECK MY REFERENCES, which you seem to have not done. -- sednar (talk · contribs)

• Neither google nor snopes substantiates this, so I'd say delete as original research. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 13:58 (UTC)
  • What about Quatloos? It subtantiates two things: first that there is a legitimate NESARA bill, and that there is a NESARA conspiracy theory believed by many people who have fallen for con artists directly involved with the Omega Trust scam. I think you need to do a lot more research before claiming NESARA conspiracy theory as original research. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:32 (UTC)
  • google doesn't substantiate it? Perhaps you spelled it wrong, I got 72,900 hits : [9] - sednar (talk · contribs)
• Redirect In retrospect, I would like to ammend my vote to redirect. Dcarrano makes a good point. This is a conspiracy theory about a proposal for legislation. It should be a footnote on the legislation article with citation to the Tribune article and the scams that have been associated with this. However, while the NESARA article needs substantial work, it should primarily refer to the crackpot proposal (which predates the conspiracy theory). -Harmil 1 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
  • non VfD related, but wanting to ask: why or how could the bill be considered a "crackpot idea"? Have you even read it? Perhaps you can discuss why you think it's a crackpot idea with me here: http://www.thewordfiles.com/nesara Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:36 (UTC)
• Keep a real conspiracy theory, believed by real dolts, and well worthy of an article ➥the Epopt 1 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
• Redirect to NESARA, which in turn should be an article about the conspiracy theory, rather than the mess it is now. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)
• MergeKeep content w NESARA, and perhaps Sherry Shriner, a proponant of these theories. Anyone w any doubts as to the accuracy of all this should read her article, or better yet her websites. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)
  • • Changed vote to Keep due to how well the original NESARA is doing, and how big it is. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
  • Note: the only reason it was split out, was that NESARA is presently on VFD as well. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 15:40 (UTC)
• Keep Though it's almost certainly inaccurate, it does represent a real phenomenon that somebody could conceivably want to research. The term NESARA gets over 60,000 google hits and it is clear that significat numbers of people not only believe in it but also politically organize around it. As such, whether or not the beliefs of adherents are correct is not material. What is important is whether or not this is a legitimate topic. I believe it is. The page should be watched, though, to ensure NPOV and that it is accurately contextualized. Tobycat 1 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
• Delete insufficiently notable to have a whole article rather than a brief mention in passing. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)
• Keep This information is useful to the public regarding one of the largest and wide-spread internet hoaxes. I find there to be an unreasonable vendetta against these articles, and if I wasn't so busy gnoming articles, I'd think some of these VfDs are mere trolling incidents. The popularity of this NESARA conspiracy theory should be enough to warrant its own article, and is one of the top ranked search items for information about it from Google, indicating several internet sites are linking to it for reference. The public should be informed of this hoax, and likewise also informed of the legitimate NESARA bill. I also appeal to the originators of these VfDs to end the trolling. --Inigmatus July 1, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
  • Trolling accusations are inappropriate; assume good faith. The thing is that I don't believe there is any "legitimate" NESARA bill. Sure, a few private citizens in a country of 250 million people might support such a bill, but that doesn't make it a bill "under consideration by Congress." Therefore, there should only be one article, discussing the conspiracy theory surrounding this phantom bill, and it should be under the NESARA label. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
    • The reason it was split was to address wordiness and other NPOV issues with NESARA which still needs some work. NESARA conspiracy theory could use some cleanup, but I think it should be kept because of the fact that the hoax is more popular than the legitimate bill itself, and if there are other wiki articles solely for other famous hoaxes, then this article is definately one that should be included in such a category of similar articles, and not deleted. In all VfD discussions I usually defer to article precedent over deletion rules. If related articles exist for the same reasons the target article exists, then I believe the targeted article should be allowed to stay as well. In short: are there any other nondisputed wiki articles for other famous hoaxes? If so, then I think we have the precedent we need for making a decision on this VfD. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 21:19 (UTC)
      • Agree with much of your logic, but just as e.g. I would place the Hitler Diaries hoax under the heading Hitler Diaries rather than Hitler Diaries hoax, I would place the NESARA conspiracy theory under the heading NESARA, rather than under NESARA conspiracy theory. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)
        • I understand your reasoning too. I think what the author of this article did for the title was to formulate something similar to other conspiracy theory articles listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conspiracy_theories Notably, you have a SARS conspiracy theory and a seperate SARS article. The same is true for AIDS conspiracy theories vs AIDS, Nick Berg vs Nick Berg conspiracy theories. The original subject in these examples are shown as seperate articles, then you have a seperate article dealing with the popular conspiracy theory regarding it (if there is one). I think this was the author's intent for NESARA conspiracy theory. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 22:41 (UTC)
          • Understood, but SARS, AIDS and Nick Berg are things that would deserve articles of their own even if there were no conspiracy theory relating to them. However, no one really cares about the content of the Hitler Diaries -- they are notable only as a hoax -- and I think NESARA is in the same boat. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)
• This article is a split of NESARA that was performed by 67.168.88.65 (talk · contribs) during that article's VFD discussion, apparently intended to address the concerns brought up in that discussion. (See this explanation and this explanation by that user.) For GFDL reasons, if for no other, its deletion should be brought under the umbrella of that VFD discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-01 19:23:01 (UTC)
• Keep -- more notable conspiracy theory than you'd think. In any case Rick Ross thinks it's important enough for his page. 141.154.205.115 2 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)
• Delete Also answering allegations above. I did take time to investigate it. It is a conspiracy theory. As such, it should be deleted, and not be given more than a link to Conspiracy theory. I agree with the earlier comment - wikipedia does not need a separate entry for each conspiracy theory. Providing links to the individual theories ought to be enough. Groeck 2 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
  • Do you know how popular this hoax is compared to other wiki articles about particular hoaxes? I'm still not certain how this article violates any Wikipedia rules to merit deletion. I think you still have yet to present a case.Inigmatus July 4, 2005 03:36 (UTC)
    • On what basis can you call this hoax "popular"? Number of google hits is not telling us much, esp since most of those point to nesara sites or to the wikipedia entry. I certainly never heard of NESARA before seeing these entries in wikipedia. A hoax this big must be mentioned in snopes, the premier internet hoax-busting site, no? Well, no, apparently. Must be a ton of newspaper articles on it though, right? Ummm, no. Looking on Lexis/Nexis, searching for all available dates through major papers, there is exactly one article about NESARA and it is a letter to the editor from some guy in Denver in 2001. Meanwhile, a search for the phrase "good times virus" turns up 60 hits, mostly actual articles, telling me that was a far more significant internet hoax. The entry for goodtimes virus in wikipedia is short and to the point, unlike these articles. Again, it's just not notable enough to merit its own entry; this should be a sentence or two under conspiracy theories and the other NESARA maybe a sentence under crackpot economic theories but neither of these are notable enough to merit encyclopedic attention, at least not to this extent. Just my opinion.... --csloat 5 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  • Reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi: An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody will see it. The case is made above: completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Groeck 4 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)
    • Groeck, what have you against these articles? I've never seen anyone so gung-ho for removing a wiki article. You still have not presented a valid Wikipedia Deletion Guideline case for even this article's deletion, and we're at day 5 of this VfD already.Inigmatus July 5, 2005 19:15 (UTC)
      • Actually, Inigmatus, notability is required for a wikipedia entry, and the WP:DP page even has a category "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" which has been referred to in this discussion already. This is not an issue of the entry violating some rule; it is simply not notable enough.--csloat 5 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
• The dominant website cited as a source for this conspiracy theory is getting an alexa ranking of greater than 360,000. The other sources were either worse or didn't discuss it as a conspiracy theory. For something alleging to be an internet-based conspiracy theory, that is a very poor showing. I can find no evidence that this is a noteworthy conspiracy theory. Any article will be inherently unverifiable. Delete. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)
  • Comment on notability: The News Tribune, a newspaper in Tacoma, Washington, did a large multi-story exposé on NESARA [10], (which is very interesting reading in and of itself). The news tribune website ranks 24,687 on alexa [11]. As a newspaper, it has a weekend circulation of 144,000 [12] (the first part of the exposé was published on the weekend). Quatloos.com has an alexa rating of 63,753 [13] and has several pages debunking NESARA. NESARA has been discussed on radio on the Jeff Rense program. NESARA people often hold public protests and show up at other groups' protests, (see [14] for an image of a NESARA protester standing next to Ralph Nader, also [15] and that entire page for more), have carried out expensive truck billboard campaigns in Washington DC ([16] for images, and see "The Trucks" [17] for more detail and verification that they're not photoshopped images). They also hold protests outside the world court in The Netherlands (see [18] for the images of these protests - yes, the site is crazy, I'm posting the link for the images). They frequently send postcards to the world court, and to members of congress - one congressman, John Shimkus, had to point out in his newsletter to constituents that it was a scam [19]. Although Snopes.com doesn't have a NESARA page, other sites about urban legends do [20] [21]. Journalist John Gorenfeld (who has previously been published on wired.com and salon.com) recently put an article on his webpage about NESARA called "The Clinton Cargo Cult". [22]. I believe this addresses your criticism of unverifiability (discuss). I would not call this the biggest hoax in internet history, but I think it is more widespread then most in the pro-delete camp would expect. It's also notable for the absurdity of its claims, and further for the astounding fact that some people believe it. I think that some of the hostility towards this article is due to the fact that some people might be thinking I'm trying to promote the scam - far from it. I think this is a dangerous scam that has cost many people a lot of money. Now, "notability" is subjective to some degree, but consider what other articles are considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. We have an article on The flora in the fictional Star Wars Universe, an article on The Sound Track to Death Wish II, and an article on a 19th century Parisian entertainer who farted songs on stage. I think there is a place in wikipedia for the NESARA scam. - sednar (talk · contribs)
  • CommentWell said sednar. Now I wonder if the pro-delete camp will also get a clue of the obvious need for making people aware of the legitimate NESARA bill wherever the NESARA hoax is being discussed. Dr. Barnard commented to me last month that the hardest part of pushing for Congressional sponsorship is the popularity of the hoax, as all members of Congress approached, he said, refuse to discuss NESARA because they "get so many postcards about it" - referring of course to the NESARA conspiracy supporting Take Action Teams that advocate its duped members to send postcards to everyone in government to "announce NESARA now!" Can't the pro-delete camp see the need to set the record straight - and what better place to do so than wikipedia, the free (and popular) encyclopedia?Inigmatus July 6, 2005 04:52 (UTC)
    • LOL... Dr. Barnard told you this last month after he died two months ago?--csloat 6 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
      • It's July already?...it still feels like June... Inigmatus July 6, 2005 14:43 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a valuable and very accurate account of a con which has been going on for a number of years now. It is valuable as one of the few complete accounts on the Internet of this con, for those interested in cults and conspiracy theories and for those who have been or could be taken in by the con. An excellent resource, all in all. Jmc29

• I'd like to try to nudge this towards consensus if possible, as the discussion seems to have slowed down. Though it leans in favor of keep (8 to 5, with 2 redirect suggestions), I don't see a satisfying consensus being reached anytime soon. On the NESARA deletion discussion, the resolution to that discussion involved re-editing the page to reduce it to a small portion of its original size. I think it was appropriate for that article, because before that the NESARA article was heavily POV, and reproduced every little point of the NESARA proposal. Someone suggested doing the same to this article, but I don't think the same solution is appropriate here. For one thing, the NESARA conspiracy theory article is not POV, is not arguing any case, and is not promoting anything (agree?). So it is not burdened with the redundant, promotional material that the NESARA article was, and so there is really nothing to reduce (if you disagree, please make the edits). Rather, the main argument that has been levied against this article is the claim that it is simply not notable enough for inclusion. If that is the consensus that ends up being reached, then I'd say delete it altogether rather then keep a stub in an attempt at placation. But in this discussion I've argued that it is notable, and many agree with me. I don't claim that it is of overwhelmingly urgent importance, just that it is important enough to include, and is certainly not a completely idiosyncratic non-topic. I've provided evidence of that and answered claims regarding notability and verifiability, and most of my points have not been refuted. I think that unfortunately, the claim made earlier that this is "one of the largest and wide-spread internet hoaxes" (not made by me), ended up becoming a straw man argument that was easily torn down. I'd like to reframe the discussion and try to reach a consensus that this conspiracy theory, while not the biggest of all time, is notable enough for inclusion as its own article, of roughly the length that it is now. - sednar (talk · contribs)
• Keep. Notable enough for Wikipedia. --WikiFan04^{ß 15:31, 7 Jul 2005 (CDT)}
• Consensus Achieved? 24 hours later later, one comment in favor of keeping, none against, and the comments before that mixed but generally in favor of keeping. It seems like everyone felt that they have made their case ad nauseum (including me), and consensus is in favor of KEEP.
• Consensus Achieved This article is Keep. Admins, please remove VfD.Inigmatus July 8, 2005 15:51 (UTC)

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

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 12:49 (UTC)

[edit] NAMGLA

non-encyclopedic fiction ➥the Epopt 1 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

• weak delete - Being fictional is not grounds for deletion. But not being notable is. There are 7,000 google hits for this, but many also seem to be "man-girl love association". Brighterorange 1 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, just four Google hits. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. "Gerbil namgla" gets 0 hits. That doesn't mean it's not real, but in this context, I think it's safe to say it's not notable. -Harmil 1 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
• speedy hoax --MarSch 1 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

Try searching with "Fecal Smear band". I have one of their fliers, as soon as I can get my friend to scan it I'll put it up. Bottoms up! Dawud 2 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

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

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 12:56 (UTC)

[edit] List of Geico commercials

OK, I am more tolerant of lists than many Wikipedians, but this seems like too much. Is it really encyclopedic to have every [[List of {insert name of American company here} commercials]] in existance? Niteowlneils 1 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Geico commercials have made a particular impact on the American conscience - particularly because one line of them parodies other commercial campaigns, while another line features that Gecko, which is a pop culture phenomenon all its own. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 16:03 (UTC)
• Delete Then make a page for the Gecko. -Harmil 1 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's face it, a lot of people who go to the Geico entry are probably looking for something like this. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
  • They could be looking for the company's products but not its advertisements. Delete - Skysmith 4 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
• Delete. No useful information that can be merged to the Geico article (which certainly SHOULD discuss their advertising). — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
• Delete. Uvaduck 2 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopedic - though Geico could mention their incessant advertising which makes me glad I'm getting rid of my stupid TV. CDC (talk) 2 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

[edit] Mechasaurus

Delete. Vanity - article is about an MMPORG player character, and his ability to get himself banned from various sites. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 15:57 (UTC)

• delete. Certainly looks no like no potential for a useful article. Shimgray 1 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
• Deleeete drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity page JoJan 1 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 13:00 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Rewald

Eighteen year old porn actress, if exists is non-notable, probable hoax (and thereby potentially libellous misinformation) Shimgray 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

• Delete how notable could her career be if she's still 18? drini ☎ 1 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
  • Comment: Traci Lords' career was pretty notable when she was 18, mainly because she was underage for much of it. This, however, is a hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Groeck 1 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
• Delete, doubtful origin. --LeoTheLion 1 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this article is pure nonsense. None of the names of people or movies match anything even remotely related. Hoax. -Harmil 1 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable JoJan 1 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
• Delete, ...critically acclaimed Chewbacca and Yoda: Lightsabers in my Pants...., uh, yeah. func(talk) 1 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, probable attack page. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
• Delete. A porn actress with no internet presence? Seems unlikely. This would be speediable under User talk:Uncle G/Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Unsourced biographies. Pburka 2 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
• Delete. Very possibly hoax, definitely non-notable.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:29 (UTC)
• Delete. --Yekrats 6 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

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

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 13:03 (UTC)

[edit] Memeration

neologism, low Google hits, original research - UtherSRG July 1, 2005 16:39 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism (says so right in the article), original research. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
• Delete. A "proposed idea" for a new word. Promo and original research. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)
• Comment. Probably you are right and with the quality standards used on the English Wikipedia (higher that the ones that can be afforded in some other languages Wikipedias) the heading of the article is a neologism with not enough hits and it should be discarded; as author of the article I am not going to argue on that; but I think it is neither original research nor, certainly, promo. What is said on the article was found in a serendipitously way and not as the result of any personal research, so I have no theory of mine to fight for.

Still, even if the article is deleted, I think that the collective changes of mind are due to new sprouts of memes and not of genes is a factual thing and, though small, a piece of information that should be stated somewhere in the Wikipedia; perhaps it is already said, I do not know.

I found myself not able to incardinate this idea in any existing article (I am not sure of the English I use) and I thought (and I think) that it was (and it is) more natural to state that fact through the neologism, saying clearly that the heading of the article is a neologism. In the article the important thing is not the heading but the idea, there are articles identified not by words but by phrases. But, perhaps, I am wrong

Trying to do that, and to justify what I needed not to justify (my small amount of work on the English Wikipedia) perhaps I put on the article some irrelevant quasi personal data that I should not have put there. If finally the article is kept, I now think that those data should be deleted.Jon Peli Oleaga 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

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

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 13:04 (UTC)

[edit] RoleplayingGameAwards

Non-notable game awards hosted on MSN groups[23]. A google search yields 10 unique results, 2 of which are from the site itself. -Frazzydee|✍ 1 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

• Delete — I'm into that hobby and I've never heard of these awards. (Yeah, dweeb alert... :) In fact RPGA is commonly associated with a gaming association. — RJH 1 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
• Delete Awards presented by small internet chat groups are not notable. Perhaps if evidence was presented that the recipients cared when informed that they had been selected, it might be notable. They don't even have their own host (only a MSN Group site). The discussion threads seem to involve less than 50 people, so I have my doubts that it even approaches notability. Oh, and the lack of spaces in the page name is annoying and unencyclopedic. --Habap 1 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Come back when you have a TV special. ;-) 23skidoo 1 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted Content was: {{vfd}}Bluish-green{{d}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

[edit] Glaucous

Dicdef; see relevant Wiktionary page - SP-KP 1 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)

• Speedy. Short article with little or no context. The entire article is: "Bluish-green". Tag's already there. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 17:57 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 DELETE.

[edit] Free Webs

delete - advert spam, not notable - UtherSRG July 1, 2005 17:04 (UTC)

• delete - promotional JoJan 1 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:58
• Cleanup Originaly not adverstise except when those people advertised their sites. Found 291,000 Google hits. LAGalaxyRock72 (UTC)
• Keep: The Xanga article is rather similar, and it isn't up for deletion, so it should be kept. 64.12.116.67
• Keep and Cleanup, what LosAngelesGalaxyRock72 and 64=12=116=67 had to say. MajOrLeAgUeSocCERFreAk777
• Delete - It is Google's job to list websites, not an encyclopedia. No historical events are listed, just an advertisement of features which are subject to change. Having numerous Google links to customer's content does not make the web host noteworthy. Keeping a bad article because there are other similar bad articles sounds like a bad policy. Marvin01 6 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)

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

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 13:08 (UTC)

[edit] Channel Cat

This one-sentence article is about the non-notable owner of a non-notable website. According to the website, there are only 439 users. I believe this article should be deleted because (a) the topic/person is non-notable. The full text of the article is: "Channel Cat- Owner and operator of sheezyart." Tobycat 1 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. JoJan 1 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)
• Delete - nn Cutler July 1, 2005 19:09 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
• Comment if we had a List of fish kept in water gardens I'd suggest a redirect there, but we don't. SchmuckyTheCat 2 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
• Delete or redir to Channel catfish (thanks for the idea, schmucky). Niteowlneils 3 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)

No, the site has many many many more users than that, the site simply does not list them. The users that you are saying are simply the ONLINE users at that moment. This deletion does not have enough credible evidence as to why it should be deleted.

Unsigned comments by 162.84.60.78 --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 13:08 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

[edit] List of philosopher's philosophers

I invite a philosopher to provide a rigid definition of philosopher's philosopher which is comprehensioble to an non-philosopher. Failing that - delete. -- RHaworth 2005 July 1 17:44 (UTC)

• I'd say a philosopher's philosopher is one who writes philosophy primarily for the consumption of other philosophers, as opposed to the general public. Since this describes most philosophers, delete. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 17:54 (UTC)
• I'm afarid that I agree neither with the initial reason given for the VfD (the notion is perfectly clear, and the locution commonly used in many contexts – a musicians' musician, a comics' comic, etc. – with general understanding), nor with BD2412's comment (his definition is surely incorrect; a comics' comic isn't someone who tells jokes only for other comics, etc.). Nevertheless, I'm inclined to vote delete, as the list would be subjective, open-ended, and pointless. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 1 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
  • Well, I was just making a stab at a more likely meaning, but I do think a "comic's comic" or a "musician's musician" would be a very different concept. I have heard similar language (economist's economist, for example) used to describe someone in an academic field who writes only for those versed in the terminology of the field. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 20:52 (UTC)
• Delete Such a list would be inherently POV. Now, an article on standup philosphers might be useful! --Habap 1 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
• Delete - inherently POV Cutler July 1, 2005 19:07 (UTC)
• Delete, too vague of a concept. It would be impossible to make an objective, encyclopedic list out of this. — Ливай | Ⓣ 1 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
• Delete. There isn't a single philosopher listed there. (Wait, there is a single philosopher listed, but that's it). Since the term "philosopher's philosopher" is already in Quine's article, there's no purpose for this article. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:41 (UTC)
• Delete inherently POV. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
• Delete's delete. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:57 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 14:20 (UTC)

[edit] Contingent work

This is a personal essay on a term that seems to be a technical neologism (aka jargon). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 1 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

• Delete as an essay. - Lucky 6.9 1 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
• Either massive revision or delete. It is someone's homework. It might be useful to have an article on contingent work, but this is not in the right format, doesn't have the right content and doesn't have the right voice. My favorite sentence is "Non-standard work is any type of work that deviates from standard work." --Habap 1 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
• Weak keep - seems like a concept from the peer reviewed secondary literature. Desperately needs to go to WP:Cleanup Cutler July 1, 2005 19:05 (UTC)
• Delete — this is tantamount to OR and definitely looks like an essay.-Splash July 2, 2005 01:49 (UTC)
• Delete essay. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)
• Delete essay, if the term is useful, re-direct to permatemp SchmuckyTheCat 2 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 8 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

[edit] A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas

not suitable --Habap 1 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

• Speedy. Fanfic at the very least, or else a transcript of an episode which makes it a copyvio. If this is a real episode, someone can recreate it later as a properly formatted episode article. Keep as rewritten, though should be expanded. 23skidoo 2 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
• Copyvio, presumably? Fixed, keep now. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
• Keep now that it's been rewritten to conform to Wikipedia standards. Cromulent Kwyjibo 1 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
• Keep as long as we're going to be having articles for individual TV episodes. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
• Keep as per Phil. — Ливай | Ⓣ 1 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)
• Keep Definately Keep. Redwolf24 2 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
• Keep Keep it Dbalic 7 July 2005 05:50

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 14:14 (UTC)

[edit] More than happy

Non-encyclopedic gibberish. Gorrister 1 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

• Delete - non-encyclopaedic Cutler July 1, 2005 19:02 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

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

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 No consensus, so keep (18 Merge, 12 Keep, 7 Delete, 2 Keep or Merge, 1 Transwiki, 2 votes by new users, and 1 anonymous vote) --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 15:36 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew 1:verses

This is a vfd concerning the articles Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15 Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25

It would be useful to indicate, if you wish the articles to be kept, whether you are a christian, during this vote, to determine if this area of wikipedia has systemic bias, or it is balanced. If an indication is made, please be honest about it.

• Delete. Articles must be noteworthy by themselves, not because they belong to a greater work. There is nothing significant about these verses. Wikipedia is not a seminary. (n.b. this counts as a vote to merge if delete is not the majority position)~~~~ 1 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Matthew 1, where they can get the correct context. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Cutler July 1, 2005 19:00 (UTC)
  • These pages contain only a small fraction of the information out there, and already if you add them up they come to more than 100kb in size. A merged page would be massive. - SimonP July 1, 2005 19:37 (UTC)
    • The merge is about notable information. There is plenty of non-notable information out there. E.g. there is information about how to kill a cat with a carrot whilst talking to your mother in the living room. This is not notable. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia does not have a notability requirement, only a verifiability requirement. The information here is all quite verifiable. See also Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance and Wikipedia talk:Importance. - SimonP July 1, 2005 20:23 (UTC)
        • If that were true, then an awful lot of articles that were deleted would have survived VfD. - check the VfD archives. They did not. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 1 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
  • n.b. Wikipedia is not paper states that
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
  • ~~~~ 1 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
    • I submit that this information is even more "discriminate" than Simpsons episodes. Kappa 1 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
      • An individual Simpsons episode is not analogous to a single line from a book. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:06:15 (UTC)
        • Indeed, they are not analogous. A single line from this book is far, far more important than an entire season of the Simpsons. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 03:18 (UTC)
          • According to a neutral NPOV academic standpoint held by most neutral NPOV academics across the world? Or according to a religious ideology which you espouse? ~~~~ 2 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)
            • Likely according to both. A fifteen year old cartoon pales in cultural importance compared to the most important Western work of the past 2000 years. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 16:26 (UTC)
              • But does a 20 minute episode of a 15 year old cartoon have less signicance than just 3 lines of a genealogy (e.g. Matthew 1:9, and if so, why? ~~~~ 2 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)
            • Well, the articles on Simpsons episodes appear not to focus on the scholarly commentary on the episode, wheras these do, which leads me to believe that the scholarly interest in Gospel verses is higher than scholarly interest in Simpsons episodes. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 16:47 (UTC)
              • Tell me, how much time has been given between the simpsons episodes appearance, and the articles creation? There is plenty of time for 2000 years worth of scholarly content to be added. The bible has had 2000 years already. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
            • Okay, in 2000 years we can compare again, and maybe it will be the Simpsons that is the scriptural basis for the world's largest religion. Until then, it appears to be the Gospel of Matthew that has attracted the preponderance of scholarly analysis and cultural interpretation. It may be a systemic bias of Wikipedia that we have to judge things based on how they are today rather than how they will be two millenia in the future, but we'll have to live with that. (I'd also point out that claims that a single Simpsons episode is not analogous to a verse of a book are somewhat misleading. There are ~300 Simpsons episodes and ~1000 verses in Matthew, and 1/1000 and 1/300 are really not that different in terms of granularity.) Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 19:08 (UTC)
              • Just being part of the world's largest religion does not automatically make verses individually notable. Also, please avoid false dichotomy, there may be 300 simpsons episodes, and 1000 verses in Matthew, but there are about 30,000 verses of the bible, and the simpsons is in a 1:100 ratio here, comparable only with chapters.~~~~ 2 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
            • Read false dichotomy; that is quite clearly not it. Moreover, you have ignored my point, that the amount of scholarly research on (and cultural and historical interest in) an average Gospel verse far exceeds that on an average Simpsons episode. Nor, you will note, have I made a case that every verse in the Bible deserves an article. I will deal with that with the time comes. You have nominated 25 verses for deletion, all of which are of above average importance. In any case, I've devoted about as much time as I care to this debate (which seems headed toward an unsurprising no consensus). Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 20:20 (UTC)
              • False dichotomy is a situation in which one side inaccurately (i.e. false) alleges that there is a choice between two options (a dichotomy). Di-chotomy means two options. A false dichotomy is a situation in which it is not accurate to state that the two options given are the case, i.e. the dichotomy is false. I am a linguist, trust me on this. The option you give as second option is not an accurate representation of the situation, therefore it is a false dichotomy. This VfD is about whether it is right for every single Bible verse to have an article or not. If you do not think that they should, then you must vote to either merge or delete, to accurately represent that opinion. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
            • Yes, I understand this. I would challenge you to present the two options I presented as exclusive.
            • No, this is not a VFD on that issue, as much as you might like it to be. For one thing, assuming these articles are deleted, it would not affect, say, Matthew 2:1. Moreover, articles on these very verses could be recreated if they had different content. No vote here will set a policy against the creation of individual Bible verses. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 20:59 (UTC)
              • You may like to think that, but I assure you that that is not accurate. The recreation of VfD'd articles is strongly frowned upon and such recreations can be deleted on sight. The reason for deletion in this case would explicitely be the existance of the article all-together, and not their content, which would be merged elsewhere. Consequently, creating the article would contradict such a result from this VfD, and thus be a delete-on-sight instance. There is a good reason for not putting Matthew 2:1 etc. up for deletion in this VfD - so that we can get all the silly paper-thin arguments that disguise ideological votes out of the way first. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
• Keep, this coming from a person raised Jewish. This has the same purpose as having articles on any other books, to me. Seeky 1 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
  • User has 24 prior edits ~~~~ 1 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
  • But we don't have articles on Lord of the rings page 12 sentence 3, so by that logic, your vote should be to delete. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
  • These are not "articles on books". The article on the book is Bible. These are articles on individual lines from a book. If we were to go into that line-by-line level of detail on any other book, such as a Star Trek novel, editors would be positively screaming "fancruft!", note. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:06:15 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not paper, and I think Biblical passages have far more cultural significance than LOTR passages. -- ????? | ? 1 July 2005 19:21 (UTC) (raised Christian, now atheist)
  • I do not dispute that some biblical passages have significance, e.g. blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, or give unto caesar. What is dispute is whether all of them do. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to merge & redirect, but only because of the copyvios. — ????? | ? 2 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
    • More specifically, merge according to the proposal by Uncle G below. — ????? | ? 2 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a dedicated atheist and I created all these pages, so I think the allegations of pro-Christian bias are misplaced. - SimonP July 1, 2005 19:30 (UTC)
  • I am not accusing you of necessarily deliberate bias. Culturally ingrained bias is an issue on Wikipedia as well - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
    • I was one of the first to join CSB and I think you a misunderstanding the goals of that project. It is not to delete content until every subject is covered equally, rather it is to create content so that every subject is covered equally. That we have an article on Religion in the United States, but not Religion in Nigeria, is not an argument for deleting the former but for creating the later. - SimonP July 1, 2005 22:50 (UTC)
      • The Countering Systemic Bias project is for countering systemic bias, whatever method that takes for each instance of bias, thus the name. The issue you outline for 2 articles above is known as limited geographic scope. That does not apply here. The correct description of the current bias is limited awareness of the insignificance of issue in the world as a whole.
• Keep The Bible is one of the most analysed books ever, if not the most analysed book ever. Each of these has the potential for expansion to full articles. I don't see what my religion has got to do with this - WP would benefit from having articles discussing the textual analysis of the major texts of other religions too, such as the Koran, jguk 1 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
  • I'd have said the Qur'an was the most analysed, yet we don't have articles about the numerous different sections that that comes in. Wikipedia is about notable information, not just everything for the sake of it. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
    • We do, see Sura 1, etc. Adam Bishop 1 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
      • No, we don't. Sura 1 is a chapter, not a verse. And, additionally, the Qur'an isn't split into books, so Sura 1 etc. corresponds more closely with Gospel of John, Epistle of James, Chronicles, etc., and so is as worthy of a seperate article as these. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
    • Additionally, the Magna Carta is extremely analysed, and influential, but all we have is one article, not one for each of the clauses in it. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
  • My concern is that such articles as these are created by people whose religious ideology says that the bible is so significant that even every word in it deserves an article of its own. I believe Wikipedia should consider items significant of mention only if they are academically so. I do not see people offering anywhere courses about Matthew 1:2, or standard courses containing lectures solely about Matthew 1:7. This is, in my view, because they are not notable enough.
  • Academics do find some verses important, such as Mark:16 and John:21, but I don't know of any serious scholar who thinks every single verse in the bible is worthy of note.
  • It strikes me that creating such articles is an attempt to turn a section of Wikipedia into an online bible. Wikipedia is not the bible, it is an encyclopedia. Nor should Wikipedia be a bible commentary.
  • Collectively, these articles also constitute a serious copyvio, as they would, in total, duplicate the entire King James Version, and the other text that is in them (I forget which). To avoid this copyvio, you would need to not have a significant portion of the text within wikipedia, but this is totally unavoidable if we have an article on every single verse. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
    • While we should respect copyright in general, a 300+ year old publication is public domain in almost every country in the world. Gamaliel 1 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
      • "Wikipedia should consider items significant of mention only if they are academically so" is in direct contradiciton of WP:NPOV. Kappa 2 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
        • It has nothing whatever to do with a point of view. On the contrary, moreover, it is exactly in line with the Wikipedia:no original research policy. If no-one has actually written anything about a verse, Wikipedia cannot have an article about it, as there are no sources. And in fact, the coverage of the Bible by secondary sources is uneven and patchy. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:25:08 (UTC)
          • I don't feel it's appropriate to equate non-academics with "no-one". Kappa 2 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
            • I don't feel it's appropriate to equate non-academics with academics. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
              • To repeat myself, pretending academic opinions are the only ones that matter is your POV and directly contradicts NPOV. Kappa 2 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
                • Remember, Wikipedia is not fancruft. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
                  • Indeed not, but it does aim to be NPOV and you are getting in the way of that. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
                    • Exactly how is maintaining that Wikipedia is not a bible commentary, i.e. individual verses of the bible or gospels do not automatically merit individual and seperate articles, getting in the way of NPOV ? ~~~~ 2 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
                    • To repeat myself, you are making it harder to provide NPOV coverage by using an argument which contradicts NPOV, ie Wikipedia should consider items significant of mention only if they are academically so". Kappa 2 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
                      • Wikipedia should not consider items significant if it is only fancruft. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
          • I think you are underestimating how well covered the Bible is by scholars. My library alone has some 350 commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew. Using only a half dozen of these I have found something write about every one of the first eighty verses. I would be surprised if there are any verses that have absolutely nothing written about them. - SimonP July 2, 2005 15:11 (UTC)
            • Covered and noteworthy are not the same thing. The non-trivial content (i.e. the content when the bulking of the full text, a nice image from Renaissance Art, and the intro which goes this is passage X of chapter Y of book Z (as if you had not guessed), is removed) of Matthew 1:9 for example, consists of these were ancestors during period X. That is all. That is not enough for a whole article to itself. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
• Merge. Elfguy 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
• Delete nn fancruft.  Grue  1 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 1 20:19 (UTC)
  • Please explain why the verses are individually notable?
    • The answer to this is the great extent of scholarly work on each particular verse. Gospel verses are terrible test cases for this, due to the great extent of scholarly consideration focused on these books. As for whether the structure of this information should be one way or another, I would defer to those who are contributing it, who I would assume are the experts on the subject. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 03:13 (UTC)
      • Given that those contributing to it are predominantly relying on the Anchor commentaries (self-admitted), I seriously doubt expert status (an expert would have no need to rely on such introductory works). ~~~~ 2 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)
• Keep. These are excellent articles examining the various beliefs and analyses surrounding these passages. Considering the massive influence Christianity has had on history, if these aren't encyclopedic, almost nothing is. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)
  • Most of the articles go "this is the text, here is a picture, the text is from chapter X, verse Y". Some have exegesis, some of which goes "well, this is a verse from Q", but this is not notable in itself, a list of verses in Q should really be added to Q rather than the other way around. There is a lot of vague sermon-like exegesis filling out the remainder. But wikipedia is not an online homily. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)
• Keep, high-quality verse articles such as these have been kept in previous VfDs. JYolkowski // talk 1 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
  • Others have been deleted. We are not discussing specific worthy verses, but all of them. I.e. the principle that not all verses are worthy of individual articles. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
    • I think the reason why some verses have been kept and others deleted is quality. Bible verses that have been deleted have often been low-quality articles (e.g. contained no real information, were too original-researchy, etc.). Bible verses of similar quality to Matthew 1:x have all been kept on three separate occasions; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 2:16. As to whether all verses are notable, I don't think that they all are. However, lack of notability is not a reason for deletion. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the solution is to merge and redirect to another article (which is how I voted in the VfDs linked immediately above). Having said that, these articles are probably long enough that, for example, the first seventeen are likely better as separate articles than as a monster Matthew 1:1-17. JYolkowski // talk 2 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
      • What about Matthew 1:9 for example?
      • The merge was never proposed to make them into Matthew 1:1-17, you are (perhaps unintentionally) implying a false dichotomy - it was to put them into the various Jesus Genealogy Jesus Birth Anunciation etc. articles. See below for Uncle's explanation of this:
      • ~~~~ 2 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)
        • Regardless of what the articles are called, the articles on the first 17 verses of Matthew are so large that I think they're better kept as separate articles instead of one enormous article. JYolkowski // talk 2 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)
          • You are forgetting that merging them would create massively redundant information, e.g. the content of the verses - which would be changed into a reference to Wikisource, content of one article partially duplicates that of another, etc. You are also still perpetuating the false dichotomy - the merge would not be to one single article, but to a set of (partly existing) articles, such as Jesus' birth, The biblical magi, etc. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
• Keep religiousnutjobcruft nevertheless. Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)
  • ? If it is religiousnutjobcruft then why keep it? ~~~~ 1 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not The Good eBook. Besides, I don't think putting it up in a form that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can edit to his liking was what the comissioner of this book had in mind. Almafeta 1 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
• Keep per jguk DS1953 1 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
  • per the argument that fell apart as soon as you consider that we don't have articles Ayah 1, Ayah 2, Ayah 3, ... Ayah 6000, for the verses (Ayah) of the Qur'an ? ~~~~ 1 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
• Comment: since most of us can agree that some bible verses are more significant/notable/important/whatever than others, it seems it would make sense to start with those, rather than just going chronolgically here. I seriously doubt we're going to see 30,000+ articles on these (to use someone else's figures; I assume they're basically accurate) so we might as well get the important ones first. Likewise I think it would make sense to have an article on the each chapter before we start working on the verse, and see what we can cover that way. The way we're going I see us having some chapters of the Bible with an article on each word, while others have no article or a stub like Lambastatians is a book from the Bible (yes I made up my own book for an example, don't give me crap about it). Wikipedia is inconsistent, but it needn't be that inconsistent. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)
  • I wish that was plausibly the case, but someone has already created Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23, Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17, Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, John 20:1, John 20:2, John 20:3, John 20:4, John 20:5, John 20:6, John 20:7, John 20:8, John 20:9, John 20:10, John 20:11, John 20:12, John 20:13, John 20:14, John 20:15, John 20:16, John 20:17, John 20:18, and John 20:19 ~~~~ 1 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
    • Clicking on a few of those articles at random, each of them IMO does appear to have meaningful content. I'm assuming that we're sure they're not copyvio... Dcarrano 1 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
      • Oh they are all meaningful, none of them is patent nonsense. But are they all noteworthy ? E.g. take a look at Matthew 1:9. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
• Delete Completely out of place in an encyclopedia 62.253.64.15 1 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
• Complex vote: I think that the Bible articles should be divided as such: for each book, write an article, merging in information on each chapter. If the article gets too long, fork out any chapters long enough to sustain their own article. If the chapter articles get too long, fork out any verses long enough to sustain their own article. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I'm a semi-militant atheist agnostic. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)
  • That's a very good idea. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)
    • Merge as per Philwelch. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 23:15 (UTC)
• Comment. No vote yet because I want to sleep on this one, but I just wanted to say that I'm appalled at the suggestion that we should have to identify ourselves by our religious persuasion to have an opinion about how a secular encyclopedia should be organized. Gamaliel 1 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a compulsion, I was curious as to whether there was systemic bias on VfD (in general), which would, of course, be a serious problem (i.e. VfDs leading to inappropriate decisions which would not be made in a less systemically biased environment). Indicating religious background helps to identify whether this is the case or not when the vote is finally tallied. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
    • It would be utterly meaningless information unless you assume bias. If a Christian votes keep or an athiest votes delete, how could you possibly know if they were for reasons of religious bias as opposed to a logical decision about how to construct an encyclopedia? Gamaliel 2 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
      • It was for cumularive purposes, not individual, if there is a statistically significant difference between the majority (or non-Majority) of Keep votes when you include Christian votes (i.e. normal voting procedure), and the majority (or non-Majority) of Keep votes when you don't, then this would indicate a systemic bias. In a neutral environment, in a large sample size, such as here, there should be no such significant difference, I wish to know if this is the case. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)
        • The obvious disadvantage is that it would not tell us what kind of systemic bias we're looking at. Nor is the sample likely to be large enough to meaningfully extrapolate from moderate percentage differences. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 16:26 (UTC)
          • That all depends on the sample size compared to the size of the difference. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
        • Assuming you could even get a sufficently large sample size from this vfd discussion, which I doubt, would you distinguish between practicing and non-practicing Christians? Protestants and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? Many non or former Christians exhibit a strong anti-Christian bias, are you concerned about this as well or just the bias behind Christian votes? Gamaliel 2 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
          • I would only be concerned if it was statistically significant. What qualifies as statistically significant is dependant on the sample size (and mean, and standard deviation, although that isn't so applicable here). ~~~~ 2 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
            • It should also be pointed out that by asking only keep voters to indicate if they are Christian, you eliminate any chance to extrapolate statistical data from the information. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 20:20 (UTC)
              • No, I can extrapolate whether there is a Christian systemic bias (as opposed to hypercorrection), this is the relevant bias that Wikipedia's demographic suggests would exist if any (limited geographic scope, and political bias are not really plausibly going to make a difference to the result). ~~~~ 2 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
            • No, the point is not that you are focusing only on the issue of Christianity, but that you are asking the question only of keep voters: "indicate, if you wish the articles to be kept, whether you are a christian." Because you would know nothing about the delete (and merge) voters, it would be difficult to extrapolate anything useful about the overall behavious without making major, probably weak assumptions about that unknown portion of the population. Such assumptions would be especially unjustified given that you had the chance to garner that data directly, but chose not to. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 3 01:31 (UTC)
              • A majority of the delete vote being Christian editors voting to attack the principle that all bible verses are intrinsically noteworthy is not a pro-Christian systemic-bias. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
• Merge --Tabor 1 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
• keep please it seems pretty obvious who is biased here Yuckfoo 1 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
  • Yes. But which side that is depends on which side the observer is. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)
• Keep em all. The Bible has had a huge cultural influence over 2,000 years apart from it being the book referenced by billions of believers around the world. As well, theology is an established subject for serious study and we should aim to cover it comprehensively as we do with all other forms of serious studies. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)
  • Then do so properly, in encyclopaedic fashion, not by covertly writing an annotated book within the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:06:15 (UTC)
  • Anatomy is an established subject for serious study, but we don't have articles on First finger, bone 3, Second finger, bone 1, etc. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)
• This is, as noted at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1, is completely the wrong structure. As a general priciple, individual verses of the Bible, or any religious text, do not deserve individual encyclopaedia articles. Notes on individual lines of a religious text is not exegesis, as is claimed by some editors. It is annotation, the sort of thing that one finds in a Study Bible, where every verse has footnotes. Wikibooks has an Annotated texts bookshelf that is just crying out for an Annotated Bible, if you want to write one. Annotated versions of books do not an encyclopaedia make, however. In contrast to book annotation such as these articles, encyclopaedic coverage of the Gospels would involve writing articles such as Genealogy of Jesus, Birth of Jesus Christ, Sermon on the Mount, Lord's Prayer, Parable of the talents, Jesus at the Temple, The Good Samaritan, The Good Shepherd, The Temptation of Jesus, The Wedding Feast at Cana, and all of the other (mainly red) links at List of New Testament stories and List of Bible stories. A proper structure would continue the same, and fill in those redlinks. Treating verses by groups, dealing with specific stories and narratives, sometimes spanning multiple chapters (e.g. Sermon on the Mount) is, after all, what most secondary sources actually do, and thus what Wikipedia, the tertiary source, should do too.

  And need I mention Wikipedia:naming conventions (common names)? These parts of the Bible are not commonly known by their chapter and verse numbers. Most of the people who know them probably couldn't even tell you the chapter and verse numbers. They are commonly known by their story names, such as the "Parable of the lost sheep".

  Therefore (using the New International Study Bible and the existing links in List of New Testament stories as guides to the story titles):

  • Merge and redirect Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, and Matthew 1:17 to Genealogy of Jesus
  • Merge and redirect Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, and Matthew 1:25 to The Birth of Jesus (and fix the existing link for the same in List of New Testament stories, which is currently piped to Jesus)
  • Merge and redirect Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, and Matthew 2:12 to The Visit of the Magi to Jesus (or some such title)
  • Merge and redirect Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, and Matthew 2:23 to Jesus' Escape to Egypt (or some such title)
  • Merge and redirect Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, and Matthew 3:17 to Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (or some such title)
  • Merge and redirect Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, and Matthew 4:11 to The Temptation of Jesus (which was already a redlink in List of New Testament stories)
  • Merge and redirect Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, and Matthew 4:17 to Beginning of Jesus' Ministry
  • Merge and redirect Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, and Matthew 4:22 to The Calling of the First Disciples
  • Merge and redirect John 20:1, John 20:2, John 20:3, John 20:4, John 20:5, John 20:6, John 20:7, John 20:8, John 20:9, and John 20:10 to The Resurrection of Jesus (and fix the existing link for the same in List of New Testament stories, which is currently piped to resurrection)
  • Merge and redirect John 20:11, John 20:12, John 20:13, John 20:14, John 20:15, John 20:16, John 20:17, John 20:18, John 20:19, et seq. to Jesus' Appearances (which was already a redlink in List of New Testament stories)
• And encourage no further annotated book articles on individual verses, and more work instead on the redlinks in List of New Testament stories.

  There is no need to include the text of the verses (which makes up the bulk of many articles and the entirety of articles such as John 20:19, note) in the mergers, moreover. Several translations of the Bible are already at Wikisource, and can simply be linked to. See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:06:15 (UTC)

  • An even better idea than my own. Merge per Uncle G. — Phil Welch 2 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot of them using one of these great proposals. These articles are terribly worthless as a whole (look at matthew 1:2, there's no content). This is coming from a christian, so no bias talks, please. humblefool® 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this scheme. You may not realize it, but there is actually a fair bit of controversy over how the text should be divided. For instance some, such as W.F. Albright, and Alexander Jones contend that Matthew 4:17 is the end of the introduction to the ministry, and thus a summary of his entire preaching. Others, such as David Hill and T.S. France, see it as the beginning of the section about the disciples, and thus a far more focused piece of text. We discussed making arbitrary divisions when the project was begun at Talk:John 20:16 but it was decided that we should avoid making up our own divisions because of the inevitable conflict and confusion that would result. Also many of these pages would be huge. Genealogy of Jesus is already quite lengthy and the section in Matthew 1 is over 50kb, not to mention that there is another genealogy in Luke that is about twice as long that also needs to be covered in the article. Also I have so far only included a small fraction of the total information that should be given on each verse, e.g. I have virtually nothing on pre-modern, Eastern Orthodox, Feminist, LDS, or Islamic biblical criticism. Since I do not known Greek or Hebrew there is virtually nothing on the translation issues, about which there is a vast literature. Moreover almost every other reference work goes verse by verse, so I see no reason why we shouldn't. - SimonP July 2, 2005 01:14 (UTC)
    • The controversy with Matthew 4:17 that you describe is not the problem that you purport it to be. Beginning of Jesus' Ministry can simply state that some people think that it includes Matthew 4:17 whilst others do not, and explain the arguments. Problem solved.

      Genealogy of Jesus is not quite lengthy. It's quite short (7 paragraphs plus a table). There's more than enough room for the text of the articles listed above to be merged into it, especially if the inclusion of primary source material in the originals is done away with by the merge, as it should be. (And note that the references, being identical, would not contribute to the size of a merged article as much as they contribute to the size of a collection of individual verse articles.) The series of Michelangelo paintings would also make much more sense.

      The argument that "many of the pages would be huge" is belied by the fact that, as several editors have noted here, several of these articles have no content at all apart from primary source material.

      The size of Matthew 1 is irrelevant. I didn't suggest merging into Matthew 1.

      (Also note that Matthew 1 also includes primary source material, which it shouldn't. If you had followed Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, but simply linked to Wikisource where the primary source material belongs and is, Matthew 1 would not be "over 50KiB". You've created that problem by not following the guideline. It also includes text that would have been a start to The Birth of Jesus, which would have re-coloured a redlink blue at List of Bible stories and fleshed out the existing encyclopaedic structure instead of creating more annotated book content.)

      almost every other reference work goes verse by verse — If that were true, which it isn't, there wouldn't be the "controversy over how the text should be divided" that you state that there is, as no-one would be dividing the text up into groups of verses. People do group verses. It would be daft not to. Treating the verses that form the Genealogy of Jesus as just individual verses without referring to one another for context would make little sense. Uncle G 2005-07-02 01:57:14 (UTC)

      • The universal standard in scholarly works is to go verse by verse when doing a detailed commentary. The current chapter divisions of the Bible were not added until the 13th century, and attempting to show how the author of Matthew intended his narrative to be divided is an important area of study. Going verse by verse does not preclude positing methods of grouping them. These groupings can also get quite complicated. Raymond E. Brown, for instance argues that John 20:2-10 is one section inserted in the middle of John 20:1,11-19. Of course many other scholars reject Brown's view and there are several other schemes for dividing John 20.

        I was not stating that the Matthew 1 article is over 50kb, I was stating that the verse articles on the genealogy when added together are over 50kb. I'm sorry for not being should have been clearer. The merged pages you are proposing would be huge, especially since a number of the topics you thought were uncovered actually do have substantial articles. Resurrection of Jesus is already 29kb and could no accommodate the content in the commentary on John, much less the unwritten information on the three other Gospels. Also your statement that "several of these articles have no content at all apart from primary source material" is totally false.

        I fully agree that topics like the Temptation of Jesus and Baptism of Jesus are deserving of articles, but the content of them would be quite distinct from the verse pages. For instance, St. Jerome's mistranslation of Matthew 3:2 has pretty much nothing to do with the Baptism, but is still hugely important to Christian history. Similarly that Matthew 2:11 mentions that Mary and Joseph were living in a house has nothing to do with the Magi, but is again important information. The general articles should, and those that exist generally do, give a summary of the verse articles and an indication of which verses in each Gospel cover the subject, the extra-scriptural information on the subject; and the differences and disagreements between the various Gospel accounts. - SimonP July 2, 2005 06:38 (UTC)

        • I agree that the universal standard in scholarly works is to go verse by verse when doing a detailed commentary. But Wikipedia is not a bible commentary, it is an encyclopedia, so this is irrelevant. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Grue. Fancruft (I have no affiliations to any religion/cult, other than this). A merge would encourage meaningless redirects for every bloody verse. Hopefully if x.x.x returned no results, then a user would be bright enought to conduct a less speciifc search. The JPS 2 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, a merge would re-colour several of the above long-redlinked story articles (e.g. The Temptation of Jesus and Jesus' Appearances) to blue with comparatively little effort. Moreover, a merge would make it clear that all of those Michelangelo paintings are actually part of a single coherent series. Furthermore, a redirect from the individual verse to the overall story that it forms a single line of prevents more book annotations, and duplicate coverage of the same text (once without context as a single verse on its own and once as all of the verses together as a coherent story), breaking out in future. Redirects from Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, and Matthew 6:13 to Lord's Prayer are reasonably good ideas, for example. For one thing, the latter not only analyses all of the verses as a group but also in its turn links to Wikisource, which currently has the whole prayer, and thus those verses, translated into 77 languages. ☺ Uncle G 2005-07-02 01:24:28 (UTC)
• Merge per Uncle G - great thinking! Note - I voted merge above - (affiliation - not Chistian but sympathetic to Christianity) Cutler July 2, 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• M/R to Matthew 1. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
• Uncle G's proposal, or something like it, seems a sensible solution. Thus: merge and redirect.

-- Hoary July 2, 2005 02:10 (UTC)

• Keep. On the whole this is finer granularity than I like, but having read four or five of them I'd say they speak for themselves as being reasonable short articles. The articles themselves make the case for having articles about individual not-particularly-notable Bible verses. Has User:Simonp been reading Donald Knuth's 3:16: Bible texts illuminated? Dpbsmith (talk) 2 July 2005 02:41 (UTC) P. S. The question of whether, if continued, this would eventually create a copyright problem with the World English Bible does need to be addressed. Dpbsmith (talk) 2 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  • The World English Bible is public domain so copyright is not a concern, it is also the only reason we use it since it is a pretty hopeless translation. I hadn't heard of Knuth's book, but next time I'm at the library I'll try and see what he has on Matthew 3:16. - SimonP July 2, 2005 06:38 (UTC)
    • Duh. I yam stoopid. My apologies for not checking on the status of the World English Bible. Knuth's book is NOT about Matthew 3:16. It's about 3:16. He decided to study the Bible by using a sort of "stratified random sample" technique. He decided to make a close personal study of every verse in the Bible that is numbered 3:16. He acknowledged choosing 3:16 in order to be certain that his sample would contain at least one highly significant verse. He also (somehow) got the cooperation of many talented and famous calligraphers, and every verse is accompanied by a rendering in beautifully artistic calligraphy. Dpbsmith (talk) 2 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
    • Why are we using a pretty hopeless translation ? this is inaccurate, Wikipedia is not a place to put poor quality work. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)
• I alrady voted merge above, but I now wish to specify that Uncle G's proposal is probably the best. -R. fiend 2 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
• Delete as per Grue. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
• Keep (or merge in some reasonable way). Uppland 2 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. David Sneek 2 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)
  • per the argument that falls apart as soon as you consider that we don't have articles Ayah 1, Ayah 2, Ayah 3, ... Ayah 6000, for the verses (Ayah) of the Qur'an, or on First finger, bone 3, Second finger, bone 1 for anatomy? ~~~~ 2 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

I'd vote keep for decent articles on Ayah 1,2,3,...,6000. The Qur'an is an important cultural influence, and if such articles would point out contradictions or present different interpretations that could be useful. The finger bones analogy doesn't work very well, I think. Knowledge about phalanges can be described in general terms, which is not true for, say, Matthew 1:16. David Sneek 2 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

That is because phalanges is a general term already. Knowledge specifically about the 3rd phalange of the 3rd finger, for example, is more comparative to Matthew 1:16, in that there is nothing that merits a seperate article for that subject alone. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

• Merge any useful material. Granularity at the level of Bible verses is both unnecessary and distorting: verses are not units of meaning, but a means of making convenient reference: verse-by-verse analysis destroys context and obscures meaning: verses were first regularly added to Bibles in the 15th century, hundreds or thousands of years after the various source documents were written. - Nunh-huh 2 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)
• After thinking about this for a while, I end up with Transwiki to Wikibooks:The_New_Testament. This is not to disparage the quality of these articles, which I think is high. But, that is simply where any book annotations should go. Dcarrano July 2, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
• Merge it is useful to have commentary on the bible (quran, magna carta and so on), especially if something NPOV can be put together, and I think it can. The bible is a very significant book in terms of cultural and literary reference and bears some close analysis in an encylopedia. However individual verses should not form subjects of articles unless those verses are particularly notable in their own right to the extent that they have had a separate existance, such as the Neck verse (NB I am not a notability follower normally, here it is appropriate). An article on Mathew 1 is fine and useful, a verse makes little sense on its own. Some transclusion or direction at the original texts on wikisource would help too. Francis Davey 2 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)
  • N.b. There is already an article concerning Psalm 51 and it's use as in Benefit of clergy (and I was the one that created the redirect from Psalm 51 to it). ~~~~ 2 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)
• Merge per Uncle G. BlankVerse ∅ 2 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
• Wikipedia doesn't need articles about every single verse in the Bible. Merge any useful content, as per above. - Mike Rosoft 2 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
• Weak merge per UncleG's remarkable suggestion. Express extreme distaste of the nominator challenging every keep vote and deep concern at the request for religious affiliation indication regardless of the reason; VfD is emphatically not the place for such things. That request should have been removed at the beginning as highly POV. -Splash July 2, 2005 21:50 (UTC)
• Stong Keep Culturally, historically, and academically relevant. Highly encyclopedic content. Comment 1: I find the nominator's request for religious affiliation extremely inappropriate and hope that we do not see such requests in the future. Comment 2: Much of the discussion above appears to be about organizing Bible-related content while others seem to be commenting on whether or not it belongs in the wikipedia at all. I agree that a discussion of how to best organize the content is a worthy one, but suggest that VfD is not the place to do that. A wiki-project on organizing Bible content would seem a more productive place to have that conversation.Tobycat 3 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
  • Every single verse is Culturally, historically, and academically relevant? even ones which are just a list of 3 not terribly significant names? ~~~~ 3 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
• Delete I don't expect any Bible commentary can be constructed that will be NPOV; wikipedia would do better to steer clear. I tried to help balance a few of these at some point, but I predict that this verse by verse approach will be generally dominated by atheist 'academics' (note how many of them want this kept in), with an occasional pendulum swing in the other direction. Failing a delete, better to merge the material. But to give an example of bias, I would take exception to an article about David's prayer of repentance being at Psalm 51 rather than Psalm 50, because the Psalm 51 chapter numbering is based on the Jewish Hebrew Masoretic texts, rather than the Greek Septuagint text upon which Orthodox Christians have been relying since the first century. So a simple thing like chapter numbering is a clear indicator of religious bias, or if atheist of the religious heritage you most allow to inform your studies. Wesley 3 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
  • As for the first part of your argument, the "atheist", as you put it, but more correctly agnostic academic approach is the only one based in rational discussion and actual historical evidence, rather than the irrational beliefs of any single group. As for the rest, if we can't have an article on Psalm 51 at Psalm 51, because that is the Jewish numbering and you (or some other people) disagree, we would never be able to have any articles on religious topics where Judaism and Christianity disagree, or for that matter topics where different branches of Christianity disagree. Uppland 3 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    • Yes we could, we would just choose a neutral title, e.g. The Miserere (the first word of the latin version of the text, and the title by which the psalm is commonly known - due to its use in music - e.g. Allegri's Miserere). ~~~~ 3 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
      • Biblical passages and other religious topics may be be the object of articles whether or not it may be difficult to find a title that is acceptable to different religious groups. But that you claim Miserere to be a "neutral title" clearly reveals your own cultural bias. Uppland 4 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)
        • I never claimed Miserere was a neutral title, I merely said that it might be, giving it as potential example (thus the preceeding e.g.). ~~~~ 4 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  • N.b. Psalm 51/Psalm 50 is currently dealt with at Benefit of clergy.~~~~ 3 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
• Delete all and redirect to Matthew 1. Same goes for all other individual Bible verses. No verse is notable on its own outside of the context of the book it is a part of, and the verse and chapter divisions were entirely arbitrary anyhow. Having a separate article for each verse lends undeserved credence to the peculiar fundamentalist POV that quoting or studying individual verses is an appropriate method of Bible study (as opposed to studying each book of the Bible as a whole taken in context). Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 07:52 (UTC)
  • That's not quite right. Some bible verses (as some single quotations from many other sources) achieve such notoriety that they have an existence on their own. "The wages of sin is death" is sufficiently famous to have been widely used in literature and alluded to in discourse. Indeed it forms part of the song Money by Pink Floyd I heard at Live8 yesterday. Only a very small fraction of verses are in that position. Francis Davey 3 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)
    • Okay, point conceded, but only the relatively small number of verses that have established noteriety in their own right would rate a Wikipedia article. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)
• Just to give voters an idea of the level of detail of the scholarship in this area here is a sample of articles from the last two years of New Testament Studies, one of more than a dozen journals that cover this subject. - SimonP July 3, 2005 21:21 (UTC)
  • Paul's Quotation of Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27
  • Where is the Promise of his Coming?’ The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3.4
  • A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials
  • Authority and Right of Disposal in Luke 4.6
  • The Canticle of the Heavenly Host (Luke 2.14) in History and Culture
  • Self-Help or Deus ex Machina in Mark 12.9?
  • From Faith to Faith: Romans 1.17 in the Light of Greek Idiom
  • Who are ‘The Dead’ and When was the Gospel Preached to Them?: The Interpretation of 1 Pet 4.6
  • What does 1 Thess 1.9–10 say over the addressees of the 1 Thess?
  • Paul in the ‘Between Condition' : Phil 1.23 and the ambivalence of the Dying as a Provocation
  • The Justification of Wisdom (Matt 11.19b/Luke 7.35)
  • Of Cherubim and the Divine Throne: Rev 5.6 in Context
    • The context is Ezekiel and Book of Enoch. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
  • Evangelical directions in Letters as a Means of the Formation of Relations (1 Thess 5.27)
  • What did Paul mean by ‘Those Who Know the Law’? (Rom 7.1)
  • Did Jesus Really see Satan Fall from the Sky in Lk 10.18?
  • Philippians 4:4-7: statements and situational background
    • These are religious speculations not academic research. People write about all sorts of things, e.g. Homosexuality in the Lord of the Rings.
      • Why did Frodo use the ring to hide when he knew its dangers (page X1, line Y1).
      • Why did Winston (in 1984 (novel)) have sex with the prostitute even though she was an ugly old woman (page X2, line Y2).
      • What happened to the inside of the tardis (series 27, episode 7, minute 10).
      • Does the behaviour of the blind man indicate frankenstien is about racism not unrestrained science (page X3, line Y3).
      • Did Augustus Gloop suffocate (page X4, line Y4)?
    • Just because they were written about, sometimes substantially, does not actually make them intrinsically noteworthy. Sometimes people write about things because they need to to get their degrees, and its the only bit left that no-one else has done. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
• Comment. Due to the size of this discussion, and the division on the topic, I think we need to move this out of a normal VfD and start up a discussion somewhere on how to treat verses from holy books (somewhat like Wikipedia:Poképrosal discussed the Pokémon articles). This needs to be rather well thought out before we act on something on this. Almafeta 3 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)

• I created this VfD. I disagree. It continues. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
  • If people genuinely wanted to discuss this outside of VfD then they should do so at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. It is highly notable that they have not, and that the Wikiproject has only about 5 members and is virtually inactive. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
    • Indeed, some people might say that by attempting to move this from VfD is an attempt to circumvent VfD to avoid an apparant result that one does not wish to occur. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge per Uncle G. This Buddhist understands and acknowledges the importance and vastness of biblical scholarship to world history, including scholarship on individual lines of text and even single words. I also agree that schemes of classification do vary, so that any attempt to systematize passages into catagories as "stories" might be problematic. I agree with those who feel this discussion is large enough that should it take place outside VfD. My vote represents my view that these passages are significant even to non-Christians (who, in many cases, have been persecuted because of single lines) and that, until a deeper policy be reached, they should not be deleted. Xoloz 4 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
  • As a buddhist, following such a principle, could you add to
    • One Hand Clapping
    • Twirling a Daisy
    • Gift of a scolding coal
    • Wind is moving
    • Kill Buddha
    • etc....
    • ? It would only be adhering to such a principle. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
      • I cannot claim to speak for all Buddhists, or to possess the most extraordinarily scholarly knowledge myself. Your principle is correct, however; the teachings of major religions deserve extensive coverage, wherever scholarly exegesis exists. For Buddhism, it is perhaps better to begin by cataloging the myriad schools and traditions of thought -- adherence to a sacred Word is a foreign, inappropriate concept. Xoloz 5 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)
        • Indeed, but the whole thing about koans is that they are not individually noteworthy, they contain no knowledge individually, but merely are different styles of encoding the same enlightenment. It would be like having an individual article for each type of handwriting. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)
          • If we have already got articles on Mr A Mr B and [[Mr C]], and we have an article on Genealogy of Mr F (Mr F being descended from Mr C, the son of Mr B, the son of Mr A) there is no point in an article about Mr A is the father of Mr B who is the father of Mr C, as per Matthew 1:9 etc. This information is much better covered elsewhere, not each sentence individually, which is absurd. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
• I voted merge above. I think Uncle G's plan is a good way to proceed. I also think that Almafeta's suggestion of creating a discussion page is a good one; there are a lot of biblical articles on WP and they should be well structured. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:59 (UTC)
  • There is already such a discussion page, and has been for some time. It is Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. Hardly anyone has cared about it, despite its being advertised in articles such as Bible. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
• Merge as per Uncle G. --Dvyost 5 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
• Merge as per Uncle G. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)
• Merge as per Uncle G. with the caveat that the new articles should have subsections on the differences between the Gospels. Thus Matthew's geneaology is different than Luke's, while John has none - each of these could have sections written on them in a Genealogy of Jesus article. Ruhrfisch 8 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

Note: This vote is this users only edit --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 15:36 (UTC)

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

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 16:50 (UTC)

[edit] Fintrax

Finance co. gets 431 Google hits [24] but I can't identify anything notable. Reads like an advert. Cutler July 1, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

• Delete, corporate advertising. — Ливай | ☺ 1 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
• Delete advertising Salsb 1 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
• Delete, an advert.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:35 (UTC)

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

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 16:57 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Zwick

It looks like blatant vanity to me, but from what I know college basketball is pretty big in the US, so I'd prefer some community feedback before deleting. My vote is delete - Mgm|^(talk) July 1, 2005 19:16 (UTC)

• College baseball is actually not big here; can't imagine that a baseball player who never went professional in this day and age is notable. Delete Dcarrano 1 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
• delete not notable Groeck 1 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
• Delete. Sad that his wife died, but no, a baseball player who didn't play beyond college wouldn't be notable unless he was the MVP of the College World Series or somesuch (in which case he likely would have at least been drafted into the major leagues). Mgm, you are right in that college basketball is very popular in the US, you just misread this guy's bio. :-) I doubt even the best college basketball players really deserve an article, as most of them go pro as well, except, for example, a great college player who dies tragically before being drafted. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 19:28 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks too much like a vanity page for me, and I doubt it is notable in the least. – Mipadi July 1, 2005 21:18 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)

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

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 Delete (5 Delete votes, 1 Keep vote, 7 anonymous votes, 1 new user, and an anonymous user claiming to be a new user) --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 16:42 (UTC)

[edit] Disassemblance

Non-notable webcomic. No Alexa rank. See also author Brian Hart (also on vfd). — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Am familiar with the comic, been running consistant for 2.5 yrs., but article needs serious expansion--64.223.199.2 1 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
• delete. No alexa ranking. Betting that this fails Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Webcomics's notability guidelines. humblefool® 2 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
• Strong Keep According to the Inclusion guidelines alternative proposal, this web comic is worthy of an article. It has nearly 400 strips and has been regularly updated, without missing a day, for the past two and a half years. This is a comic that is regularly posted on messageboards and communities like LJ (how I first heard about it), so it might not get much direct traffic. Perhaps Alexa alone may not be sufficient in determing if its worthy of inclusion? On a related note, the author has stressed in the past that he is mostly relying on word-of-mouth and does not currently utilize mass traffic influx techniques like ad placement. So it may be more of a slow grower. It is a decent project and is still worthy of note. I'd be willing to write a more detailed article if that would appease the Wikipedists... --Sumsumone 2 July 2005 01:20 (UTC) (user's only edits are to this VfD and a related one)
• Delete as per Humblefool. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability - longevity alone isn't enough.CDC (talk) 2 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
  • Well, what exactly is evidence of notability in your eyes? As mentioned before, it meets the requirements for the three-point Notability and Inclusion Guidelines. What evidence do you specifically need?--Sumsumone 2 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that those are proposed guidelines, and are currently under dispute on the talk page. — Gwalla | Talk 2 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
    • It seems on the Talk Page that there is just general dispute about what makes a comic noteworthy. People are suggesting for many criteria beyond Alexa. Is Alexa the only true measure at this point? If so, what justifies Alexa as the unrivaled basis for determination? If there is general dispute over how to determine "noteworthiness" then by what criteria can anyone on here make a compelling case/decision for or against this entry? --24.198.18.42 3 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
      • The dispute is over whether the alternative proposal is too lax, and whether it should be amended or dropped entirely. The Alexa test has precedent for determining whether an article on a website should be deleted or kept. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Disassemblance may have a relatively small following but its strong and loyal. It constantly gains new members and *is* growing. There is no sense in removing the article when it has the potential to boost Disassemblance's notoriety and actually make it "worthy" of a wikipedia page. Disassemblance has much to offer the comic-reading community. But without pages such as these many of them will miss out on this entertaining, witty and insightful comic. Also, do you really have to rely on a website to see what is good and what isn't? If you read the comic yourself, you'd see that it deserves this page. It makes me sad that people can't decide things for themselves anymore. — unsigned vote by 80.225.70.65 (talk · contribs)
  • I'd like to clarify my point about Disassemblance's "notoriety" as i obviously didn't express it in the best way. My point is that Disassemblance deserves this reference point; I was not implying advertising purposes. It is established as a respectable comic within its community and is not an off-hand project that will fade away. As a tribute to this, the page should stay. unsigned comment by 80.225.82.107 (talk · contribs). User: please sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~
• Strong Keep it meets the criteria, those for deletion have no grounds to defend that stance. Dis is a great comic, by a great guy. The art is unique and original. To those who say it doesn't get enough hits: the guy doesn't shove it down peoples' throats and pimp himself like so many other webcomic whores. And maybe if he had a Wiki entry, more people would see the damn site. --DragonGuyver July 2, 2005 16:05 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd just like to point out that "There is no sense in removing the article when it has the potential to boost Disassemblance's notoriety" and "maybe if he had a Wiki entry, more people would see the damn site" are not good arguments for keeping this article; in fact, it's almost an argument against keeping it (and has been interpreted as such before): Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. — Gwalla | Talk 2 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
  • Too true, but apart from the 'arguments' that you would suggest go against its inclusion, I believe the rest of their commentary shows a genuine interest in the topic. --Sumsumone 2 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
• Comment: Alexa and traffic are being pointed out as the only area, so far expressed, where Disassemblance fails the 'inclusion test.' I would like to point out from the Notability and Inclusion Guidelines the following: Sites that are close to, but still under, these thresholds may also be included on the basis that web comics customarily grow in size and have a higher likelihood of increasing in readership and, thus, becoming encyclopedic. As well as the Websnark commentary that often gets mentioned throughout the guidelines, about what comics should be included: I think every webcomic with more than 100 strips worth of archives on the web should have an entry in Wikipedia, and I think the Webcartoonist should not be the person writing the entry. Disassemblance has longevity, an extensive archive, and from the comments so far, there is obviously a fan base and interest. --Sumsumone 2 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Disassemblance is not just a webcomic that's out there to get statistical ratings or advertising. Mr. Hart makes more than jokes and 'pot shots' in his strips. It is an intellegant strip that addresses a myriad of current social, economic, cultural, religious and HUMAN issues. Dissenters would do well to go through the comic archive and experience the range of strips. Disassemblance.com is also not a site that is just about the comic. Disassemblance.com is a COMMUNITY -- a refuge for people to experience honesty, open dialogue, support, and a lot of fun in it's forums. The level of civility/etiquitte on the boards is unparalelled to any other forum i've been part of, and yet it is a natural friendliness -- not strained or fake. I'd love to see the article here in Wiki expanded to reflect Disassemblance's true nature and encompass more than just the stip. 65.40.121.21 3 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
  • Edited the above for a slight format error --Sumsumone 3 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I've been follower of Disassemblance since right after it came online. It's a great comic that is more that worthy to be on this site. It has a very loyal following and even though it's small it's been growing. I remeber when their was only a hand full of people that read it and now there's more than two hand fulls. The writer of Dis has chosen not to site whore and that's one the reasons that I like it so much. I believe that there is something in this comic that everyone who reads it will get out of it, be it a simle, a laugh, a giggle, an idea, a deep though, or even a tear. I don't think chosing that it should be deleted because it doesn't get that much traffic is a good reason when it meets all the guidlines.

• Strong Keep Disassemblance has proven in my mind to have always been directly on the money for social, and political issues. Most specificly those that have no easy answers.— unsigned vote by 69.37.91.92 (talk · contribs)
• Strong Keep Disassemblance is a highly amusing webcomic that focuses on some serious issues. It's certainly one of the more noteworthy webcomics out there. Focusing on social and political issues past and present, Disassemblance provides an insightful, humorous outlook on things that would otherwise be considered stiflingly serious.— unsigned vote by 172.172.174.20 (talk · contribs)
• Strong Keep Disassemblance is a rare gem in the world if webcomics in that it is a) clearly poduced with care resulting in a very polished look. b) has a distinct look, very diferent from other webcomics. c) has continuity and story while remaining funny. c) manages a large cast very well. and d) has a point. I am consistantly impressed by it.— unsigned vote by 68.198.94.22 (talk · contribs)
  • Format fix for the above few entries. Obviously authors not familiar with WikiFormat. As stated above, please sign your comments with four tildes, like so: --~~~~. Even if your just an ANON creep like me. >:) --24.198.18.42 3 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
• Please note that sending members of your forum is considered Sockpuppeting and is likely to count against you in the long run. Also, being "on the money", "a rare gem", or having "civil forums" does not qualify you for a wiki entry. humblefool® 4 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm no sockpuppet, you should check on that before you say that kind of stuff. I've been a Wikipedia member for a while. Though I haven't been too active in editing, there's hardly a week that goes by when I don;t use Wikipedia for reference. Also, I didn't see anything on that page you referenced about alerting fans about an action like this as falling under sockpuppeting. — unsigned comment by DragonGuyver (talk · contribs)
  • Comment: I believe Humblefool was referring to the many anonymous IPs whose only edits are to this vote page. VfD is here for the Wikipedia community to form a consensus on whether an article should be deleted or not; rallying people who do not otherwise participate in Wikipedia to stack a vote goes against that purpose. See the section "Meatpuppets" in Wikipedia:Sock puppet. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
• Delete as NN, redirect to Disassembler. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:00 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Disassemblance is a very unique comic. First of all, it has a most unusual reader demographic which seems to break fairly evenly into 1/3 christians, 1/3 atheists and a 1/3 pagans. That is a very unusual balance of readers. And it gives insight into the gem that is Disassemblance. The fact that the author has managed to capture relevancy to such differings groups and to bring these readers together (and for the most part - quite peacefully) is impressive. Perhaps due to the unique content & message and the author's method of delivering the messages. The content of the strips deal with every day life issues but all within the objective of building further understanding in mankind of one another. They are extremely reflective while at the same time quite humorous. I've read quite a few web comics, and sure many are more true to life. But few are quite as imaginative and so very satirical and yet at the same time very optimistic. I am actually amazed at the reader retention of Disassemblance. I have repeatedly been surprised to find out that someone I sent a comic too a few months back is actively reading the strip. Especially when it includes my own father, co-workers, etc. I find it interesting that Disassemblance crosses the age barrier as well with readers ranging from teenagers to 50+ year olds. Disassemblance is a comic that has been built up soley by word of mouth (and a bit of merchandise stickers/T-shirts/etc). Is it as large as Red vs Blue. Nope...but many of us find it much more relevant. Furthermore, I can say that Disassemblance has had a direct impact on my life, in bringing things to mind and affecting active thought on my part with regards to the issues. Often necessitating change on my part. That is an impressive "achievement" for a web comic. So sure...you can delete Disassemblance but Wikipedia would lose much respect in my eyes for doing so. Disassemblance is a great and unique comic that needs more support and attention...not less! People need to hear the messages Disassemblance comics say. And in truth, we need the humorous approach to let us hear them openly with out taken to our defensive postures. Please show me another web comic that is not simply humorous but address socio-political issues and has a reader demographic that ranges from teens to baby-boomers, conservative Republicans to leftist liberals, includes christians, atheists, pagans and treats such with relevancy. So if Disassemblance's only failure is to rank low on Alexa (not that I've ever heard of Alexa before) and if such were to be the justification for it's deletion. Than I will strongly question whether Wikipedia's will truly continue in it's goal or simply become another bean counter like so many other web indexes. Disassemblance has a strong, loyal, and growing following. It provides a unique perspective to a broad demographic in a humorous and enlightened way. - The Saj (July 7, 2005) "The Saj" is 65.85.113.98 (talk · contribs)
• Added some character information in hopes of bringing the article "up to code." Any of the "meatpuppets" want to help out in this respect? If people are so fanatic about the comic and want the article to stay, then they might want to consider adding to it. Give the Wikipedians all the more reason to keep it around. Does anyone know any place that has more indepth information?--64.223.199.2 8 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)

• comment just a side note....many of whom you're calling "meatpuppets" are people [like me] who use wiki on a regular basis for gathering info, but who [until this point] either 1. haven't been aware that we could be on the 'edit committee' or 2. didn't know how to join it, or 3. haven't known that it existed at all. I'd have been a wiki member long ago if i'd known how to do it. Honestly, i STILL don't know how to become a registered member, but after this experience with trying to keep an article that i feel strongly about, i'm very interested in joining so that my voice will be heard in other matters..... -deepwoodsdancer 65.41.87.131 8 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
  • Ditto. I've never bothered to register, though I use Wikipedia all the time, and have even edited/added to articles on occasion. If you want to register click on where it says "create account" in the very top right of the screen. It doesn't take much to register, and after what has gone down with this article, I don't think I can continue without registering myself.--64.223.199.2 9 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
• Precedence It seems that those who have opposed this article do so on the grounds that this webcomic fails the "Alexa Test." I would like to note that Wikipedia already contains entries for a number of webcomics that have no Alexa traffic entry but have been allowed to remain here on Wikipedia...
  • The Jaded
  • Station_V3
  • Whimville
  • Apathy Kat
  • Arthur,_King_of_Time_and_Space
  • As_If!
  • Avalon_(web_comic)
  • Buttercup_Festival
  • By_The_Saints
  • Carried_by_the_Wind
  • Fuzzles_the_Snugly_Little_Puppy_and_Grumpy_the_Cat
  • Khaki-Man
  • Two_Eighty
  • Whispered_Apologies
    • So what are the justifications for Disassmeblance being singled out? Disassemblance meets the inclusion guidelines in all respects but the "Alexa Test", but obviously the "Alexa Test" is not all there is, or even "has precedent," if other webcomics "make the grade" without it. The bottom line is that Disassemblance is a good webcomic, regularly updates, has longevity, a loyal fanbase, and worthwhile subject matter and viewpoint not seen in many strips. It is worthy to note, and its lack of inclusion, would not only be unfounded, given the precedence, but also a terrible mistake. --24.198.18.42 9 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

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

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 Delete (4 delete, 1 keep, 1 anonymous vote, and 1 new user) --Allen3 ^talk July 9, 2005 16:48 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Hart

Non-notable, possibly vanity. Author of non-notable comic Disassemblance (also on vfd). As a musician, has released one album on an unspecified independent label, afterwards only releases have been web-based. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Familiar with the comic, not so much anything else. NN vanity, just likely not known.--64.223.199.2 1 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I support the article for the comic Disassemblance, but I'm not familiar enough with the author to know if he is worthy of inclusion himself. However, the entry for Jerry Holkins of Penny Arcade has just about as much info, but has been allowed to remain. Though, in all fairness, he is one half of PA. I remain somewhat neutral, and wonder what other's have to say. --Sumsumone 2 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

  User's second edit.

• Delete non notable possible vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. CDC (talk) 2 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)
• Keep it's not vanity, I know the guy and he wouldn't do that. The article for his webcomic deserves to stay, so he does also. --DragonGuyver July 2, 2005 16:07 (UTC)
• Delete, please read WP:VAIN for the definition of vanity in this context. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:00 (UTC)
• Comment: I still disagree. Brian Hart isn't just some chef in New York, he's an experimental musician and creator of a well-loved long-running comic strip and moderator of a fierce community at the same site. The page you directed me to doesn't seem to describe something like that. — unsigned comment by DragonGuyver (talk · contribs)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

[edit] Jake bellucci

Unnotable, obviously no reason to be here SqueakBox July 1, 2005 20:03 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnotable. Public displays of affection toward article subject. Badly capitalized title. — 131.230.133.185 1 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense andy 1 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

[edit] Benham & Froud

non-notable, non wikied, biased, not really worth being an article unless someone wants to do a major rewrite. Elfguy 1 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

• Delete - may be notable subject, hard to tell, but this article is beyond salvation. Naturenet | Talk 1 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
• Delete – I concur with Naturenet's assessment. – Mipadi July 1, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

[edit] Prospective

Delete -- Wiktionary entry already exists and is far better than this, which need not be retained. Naturenet | Talk 1 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

[edit] List of second-generation human rights

This contradicts whats in Human rights as to what 'second-generation' means Elfguy 1 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

• Delete No explanation of what second generation means and duplicates rights listed in UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is referred to in Human rights. --Habap 1 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research? — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)
• Delete, poorly defined. See Political progressivism and Labour movement for alternatives. ("right to technology"??) Gazpacho 2 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
• Keep I based this page on the Three Generations of Human Rights. I was reading the article and I felt that it is lacking without a listing of the rights. Certainly, this page needs to be wikified and expanded. L.1011

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge to Who Framed Roger Rabbit. -- Jonel | Speak 03:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judge Doom

one paragraph only, should at the very least be merged into the cartoon article Elfguy 1 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

• But that paragraph is quite expandable. Keep it. -- Grev -- Talk July 1, 2005 21:22 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. There's also a Judge Doom in the Judge Dredd comics. 1 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)
• merge of course. Please don't use vfd to do mergers. --MarSch 2 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)
• Merge¨. Not expandable article.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:37 (UTC)
• Merge to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and disambiguate between film and Judge Dredd character. — Gwalla | Talk 2 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
• Merge, do not disambiguate. I think the Judge dredd character you're thinking of is Judge Death, I can't recall a Judge Doom character, although I could be wrong. Hiding 3 July 2005 22:20 (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.

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 DELETE. (by Francs2000 2005-07-11 23:32:59)

[edit] Democracia

Been 2 weeks on WP:PNT, in Portuguese. Duplicate of Democracy and others.

BEGIN text copyed from WP:PNT

Portuguese, I think. Was marked {{db|non-english article}}, but that's not a speedy criterion. --Cryptic (talk) 08:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's a very elaborate definition of democracy, and, as far as I can tell, redundant; let's leave it for a bit for somenone with better language skills to see if there's something to salvage Lectonar 09:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Portuguese. A good enough work on democracy (I think, this is not my expertise) even if it repeats itself (more than one section on Greek democracy, John Locke, and primary elections). Apparently its whole content is already included in WP, at Democracy, History of democracy, Athenian democracy, John Locke, Triennial Acts, Septennial Act 1715, and maybe others. I noticed only a few differences and possibly new info, including:
  • [at Democracia ↔ current WP article(s)]

1. Athens population: 400,000; citizen:1,000 ↔ 300,000 and "a relatively large portion " in Athenian democracy, or "excluded over half" in History of democracy, or "16%" (50,000) in Democracy.
2. Septennial Act of 1716 (claims Columbia Enciclopedia Online (?) as source) ↔ Septennial Act 1715.
3. First primary (local) election in 1842, at Crawford, Pa. ↔ I found none.
4. First primary (state) election in 1903, Wisconsin. ↔ I found none.

• • After checking this info, and waiting a little more for someone better than myself to see if there is some more, I guess it can be deleted as a duplicate article.--Nabla 14:08, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

END text copyed from WP:PNT

--Nabla 2005-07-01 20:57:15 (UTC)

• Delete or if possible speedy delete (isn't not being in English a criterion for speedy deletion?) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 1 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)

No, but if this is copypasted from another Wikipedia it may be speedied.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:55 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant, translate & merge any salvageable parts.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:55 (UTC)
• I can't see that it's worth the effort of translating and seeing if there are a few facts not covered elsewhere, but if someone wants to, speak now or forever hold your peace. Maybe transwiki to Portuguese Wikipedia? -- Jmabel | Talk July 6, 2005 04:26 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't hurt... but I took a look and apparently this won't help that much. pt:Democracia. - Nabla 2005-07-08 18:27:52 (UTC)
• Delete as it is Lectonar 6 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -Mariano July 8, 2005 09:56 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Murdoch Wilkinson

Pure and utter vanity. Given two days to show some relevance, the anon failed to do so. So here's the deletion vote. Harro5 July 1, 2005 22:12 (UTC)

• Delete 62.253.64.15 1 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --Canderson7 July 2, 2005 00:44 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge -- Jonel | Speak 03:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doxbridge

This seems to be a made up term, at the least it is a neologism and as such is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The only references I have been able to find are in fact adverts for a sporting event. We cant be listing every sports event in here without the encyclopedia becomeing discredited as trivial 62.253.64.15 1 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

• delete. humblefool® 2 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. This term does appear to be used by many Durham students, and is increasingly used by Oxbridge sports teams. It would seem hard to expand into an encylopaedia article without being somewhat controversial though -- more appropriate as a dictionary entry perhaps? -- Sjb90 2 July 2005 13:32 (UTC) (relatively new user).
• A cautious keep. Not sure what the original proposer means by "a made up term"; presumably it was made up by someone at some point, like most words; but Google hits show that it was clearly not made up by a Wikipedian. Equally, guidelines only prohibit neologisms which do not have "realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits", which is not really the case here (all words start out as neologisms; that doesn't make them intrinsically non-notable). Equally, far from all the google hits for 'Doxbridge' are about a particular sporting event; though it is true that the most prominent use of the term is for the Doxbridge sports tours (so called simply because Oxford, Cambridge and Durham are the universities that take part). It's true, however, that it's not a particularly common term (~300 Google hits), and it might merit deletion on that basis; but I don't think that the reasons given in the proposition are actually true. Transwiki to Wiktionary is a thought, but the article already contains some non-dictionary content; I think there might be potential for an article on the extent to which Durham is connected to, and differs from, Oxbridge. TSP 3 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
• delete. Richard 04 July 2005 12:14 - vote from unsigned-in User:81.132.58.245
  • User's 1st edit
• delete Has the term ever been used other than by druham fanboys? Seems like an attempt to create bogus prestige. Unbehagen 4 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
  • User's 2nd edit

  Uh, well, the top Google hit for it is from Cambridge, and then there's an Oxford hit before the first Durham one appears at hit 10.... As I say, I don't feel very strongly about keeping this term, but there's no need to use it to insult a whole university. TSP 4 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)

  I agree with TSP: I'm edgy about it developing into a longer encyclopaedia article, but Google shows the term being used 60 times in the ox.ac.uk domain, 57 in cam.ac.uk, and just 33 in dur.ac.uk (though this disguises the fact student pages may commonly be hosted in alternative domains in one or more of these universities). This isn't just a term used at Durham. Sjb90 8 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

• As with TSP; it's a neologism, yes, but one which does have some real-world existence. We do, however, have a page for Oxbridge - a merge and redirect to there would seem sensible, given the term is an extension of the Oxbridge portmanteau; it'd complement that page reasonably well. Shimgray 5 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect with Oxbridge, as suggested. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
• delete. I'm a Cambridge student and I've never heard of the term. It appears to be an attempt, made in poor taste, to boost the status of Durham by linking it to Oxford and Cambridge. Not fit for wikipedia. Sarah 08 July 2005 15:06
  • Public IP address, unsure of specific contributor's contributions

  Please read the debate above; I think this point has been answered. (Not to disagree with your vote, necessarily, but I think you are mistaken as to the origin and status of the term.) TSP 23:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC) PS. As your vote was made anonymously through the Cambridge web proxy, it is unlikely that it will be counted; if you are are a regular Wikipedian with an account and want your vote to be counted on this issue, you will need to log in and re-make your vote from your account.

• Merge with Oxbridge. David | Talk 8 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
• delete gangeska july 9, 2005
  • User's 9th edit
• Delete. Neologism. --Neigel von Teighen 9 July 2005 00:45 (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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

[edit] Greektown Casino

Advertising; probably a copyvio. -- Grev -- Talk July 1, 2005 22:36 (UTC)

• Marked as copyvio --Tabor 1 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

[edit] "DJ LIST"

This is a rant not an article. If anyone thinks this is notable, they can write an article but it does not seem warranted to me. Gblaz July 1, 2005 23:06 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense. Dcarrano 1 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
• Speedy, nonsense. humblefool® 2 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
• Speedy short/no context. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)
• Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

"Excuse me, um, Charles, excuse me, I'm on the list..."

"WHAT LIST?"

"You know, the DJs list..."

"Miss Thang, there is no guest list tonight."

• That'd be a delete and an OMG that Lil' Louis only exists as a red link on List of house music artists, for shame. SchmuckyTheCat 2 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)
• Speedy What the hell does this jibberish mean? --Karmafist 2 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
• Speedy, nonsensical enough.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:45 (UTC)
• Delete the damned thing, it's totally pointless! --Deskana 2nd July, 2005 22:21 (GMT)
• Speedy. Just...speedy. This isn't even coherent. - Lucky 6.9 3 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

[edit] Bride Ordained

Delete bandcruft. Non-notable, only 2 relevant Google hits for "Bride Ordained", very short article is possibly a candidate for speedying, but not quite. -Splash July 1, 2005 23:45 (UTC)

• Delete - oh, I have so much trouble staying my finger sometimes. Cutler July 2, 2005 00:04 (UTC)
• Delete. --Canderson7 July 2, 2005 00:48 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly non-notable. Nice (and totally useless) website, though.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 no result. Going to be deleted due to copyvio anyway.

[edit] Saint Holos

This article smacks of the "Religious Excogitation" variety of patent nonsense. The only Google hit on "Saint Holos" brings the reader to a new-age self-help site disguised as a search engine. The article should be heavily reworked into a more neutral form, include links to other sources of information about "Saint Holos," and/or be deleted. 204.85.194.203 jf 2 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

• It is a copyright violation anyways. Starting copyvio process. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 5, 2005 06:33 (UTC)

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