Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 9 June 11 >

Contents

[edit] June 10

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiked Wood

non notability - ad Melaen 00:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing but puffery. Not surprisingly, no AMG entry. Postdlf 00:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I made the page Neutral-Point-of-View, so it's more "factual". However, it seems to be one of those "high school bands" as I'd call it, since their official site is Tripod. MessedRocker 00:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The original author also modified horrorcore to add a list of bands (including Wiked Wood and Playaz Lounge Crew, both on VfD today) of which none appear on AMG (the change has since been reverted). --Dachannien 00:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that someone so obviously intimate with the band has so little to say about them suggests how non notable this entry is -Phantym 04:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave Article. Wiked Wood is a well known underground horrorcore group in Philidalphia, PA. I was actually the one that put them up with a bunch of other great underground acts from this genre. Someone did not look up their facts right about Wiked Wood, because if they had they would know that Wiked Wood has a huge fanbase and also is shown love by horrorcore fan sites such as www.realjuggalettes.com, www.hallsofillusions.com, faygoluvers.net and many others! Playaz Lounge Crew is actually in the underground psychos contest held by Psychopathic Records and is considered to be the top contender and on their way to becoming one of the biggest things in horrorcore! The other groups I listed in the horrorcore section, also all have successful careers. Don't let the age of these youngsters fool you! These guys are the real deal! With or without being in the AMG! Horrorcore is about being underground! I am out!!!!! Peace! And have respect... (preceding unsigned comment by  69.248.177.100 04:44, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)) (according to edit history. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC))
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 18 Google hits? That suggests the facts aren't worth looking up. Too obscure and non-influential to be worth an article. Average Earthman 06:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band vanity. A fifteen year old and a thirteen year old well known underground in Philly? Not likely. --bainer (talk) 08:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A 15-year-old and a 13-year-old who have been performing together since 2002. I shudder to think of a 10-year-old rapper. RickK 19:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Keep While I wonder why something self-described as "underground" could have an entry anywhere as anything other than historical or sociological note, this is a group with it's own web site and following. So what if I've never heard of them and never would - this is not a paper encyclopedia and not restricted to what lots of people know. As to "notable" - I've seen it said that something is notable if it's in Wikipedia and it is here so it is notable: i.e. it requires a better reason than "not notable" to be removed.-Snorre/Antwelm 14:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment OK, a lot of pages gets deleted for `band vanity`. Please tell me whats the go with U2 then ? Im not a band player, nor a fan. Lets give these kids a go, as long as the articles are not NPOV etc.. -Snorre/Antwelm 14:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Uh... U2 is a multiplatinum-selling band that's been around in the global music scene for decades, frequently selling out venues on their tours. Are you implying that their track record is in any way on the same level as these amateur "rappers"? jglc | t | c 16:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Please review WP:MUSIC. The band needs to meet those criteria. RickK 19:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • something is notable if it's in Wikipedia — That's a faulty circular definition that most Wikipedia editors realize to be faulty. Uncle G 15:42, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other paper encyclopedias would have this as a foot note as best, with an online encyclopedia devoted to being as broad ("all human knowledge" - Jimbo Wales) as is possible I see little reason why this could not have it's own article. --ShaunMacPherson 12:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. This doesn't require a better reason than non-notability, as Wikipedia is in the business of putting factual information out on important events, phenomenon, etc. If these guys are good, they'll probably make it big in a few years, and then they'll get an article. Until then, however, this article is likely to be of little use to anyone. --Scimitar 13:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and/or lack of WP:MUSIC. Radiant_>|< 13:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • ``Keep``` Non-notable? Defined by people who haven`t heard of them? I wouldn`t have if it wasn`t for this vote. Lets keep it, so that when/if they get _big_ we already had something on them. PS: Something should be done with the history section though; Still sounds like rambling. -Snorre/Antwelm 13:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This user's second vote on this topic.
    • If the band becomes significant, then it will merit an article. Wikipedia deals with what is known now, not what may be. I don't get an article just because, some day, I may be the president. The same is true of start-up bands that haven't actually achieved anything yet. Uncle G 15:42, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete Band vanity and nn --Lord Voldemort 13:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 100% KEEP!!! Just like Insane Clown Posse and Twiztid this group deserves the same amount of exposure! This encyclopedia covers everything so why should underground acts not be kept! I looked Wiked Wood up and indeed there fan base big! They are not just a "highshool" band!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.43.67.130 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) (according to edit history. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC))
Google: "Wiked Wood", results: 16 pages found. When I took out all the pages that were just different sections of their official site, I got 5. Wow. Five. Big fan base there. And by the way, you used the wrong "there" in your comment. You should have used "their." Matjlav 20:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. it's all legit ive been a bunch a juggalo sites and they have a link in just bout all of them. they have solid fan base in philly which I can prove since im a fan myself [female dog]! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.43.67.130 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) (according to edit history. This user's second vote. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)) (Refactored comment in brackets that could be construed as a personal attack.)
  • Keep. Some of the best music does not have to be in the AMG guide allot of it is "underground". So, their official site is published by Tripod (so what???!!!) they still own a domai name and their fanbase is a high quanity checked (hallsofillusions.com) a fansite for this genre and indeed they were listed as being a "real" group. All in all this is an encyclopedia covering everthything just becuase you may not know exacly who these kids are does not mean you can say nobody else does! Just as big as Jumpsteady in my mind and Jumpsteady does not even have a site!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.43.67.130 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) (according to edit history. This user's third vote. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC))
  • No evidence that this band meets the WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete. Uncle G 15:42, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete --Xcali 15:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete; I'm a big hip-hop fan, located in northern Delaware, and I follow the local scene. These guys are utterly and wholly unnotable. jglc | t | c 16:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Generally, notable bands aren't defended by sock puppets, because a) more than one real person cares about them, and b) sock-puppets have a low life-expectancy, and burn in wiki-hell when they die. --Scimitar 17:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lord Voldemort. --FCYTravis 18:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The fury with which these folks are fighting speaks eloquently for their not having any notability. I don't think that U2 would care if they were mentioned here, because they're well known. On the other hand, fictional and desperately feeble bands scream bloody murder over any possibility of a delete vote. The reason is that they're using Wikipedia for advertising, which, of course, is against the deletion policy. This isn't even to get to the issues of verifiability or notability. Geogre 18:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Delete per Lord Voldemort and Geogre. The copious amounts of slang used in the article makes it feel somewhat suspicious to me too. Scott5114 19:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, scokpuppet limit has been exceeded. RickK 19:32, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, and a surplus of anons. --Carnildo 21:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, sockpuppet parade. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of discography or anything that shows compliance with Wikimusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 22:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although this edition of sockpuppet theater has been entertaining. -- BD2412 talk 23:07, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete Do we need every damn rap "music" group from podunk's bio here? No! Hohokus 23:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Here's a simple rule: if a band has no mass media exposure, is formed by non-notable musicians, and is only a couple of years old, it's obviously not notable. No, I take that back -- it's not a question of notability. It's a question of HTF are we supposed to keep track of the thousands of minor bands that are born every single year? ----Isaac R 02:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely looks like a very amateur garage band not worth noting on a worldwide encyclopaedia... Matjlav 02:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Matjlav its just vanity. Falphin 01:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delte Anon IP has voted wayyy more than once, probably sock-puppets involved and nothing to even show it has notability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bandcruft. Alphax τεχ 11:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteNo music or lyrics released ("We do not make lyrics available 4 the public." from their website), not notable on the "scene", no awards, no indication that even their friends have listened to their music. Best of luck to them. If they actually do release something some day, they can come back and create a new page! --Habap 18:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SE Share-A-File

non notability Melaen 00:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Author> This listing may be useful for network administrators confused as to the origin of traffic on their networks

  • Delete If Wiki needs software tools, we don't need to download them from some unknown. Apparently a variety of "type: Vanity, Student, one each". Fabartus 02:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, Vanity. -Phantym 04:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if only because it has a direct link to an .EXE file - anyone could do this and link to a virus. The program is NN too. Jamyskis 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity. Aecis 13:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, potential danger (virus) -Snorre/Antwelm 14:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've removed the external link. Aecis 14:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NeoJustin 15:25, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --Xcali 15:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable vanity. Nestea 03:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Postdlf (content was: 'neopryn is a nineteen year old member of the Netphoria message board. he started his career there as a quiet observer in 1999...') --cesarb 01:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neopryn

vanity - sillyness Melaen 00:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Speedy if possible! --Dachannien 00:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've speedy deleted this to save us time—no one would vote to keep an article about the username of a 19 year old on a particular online forum. Postdlf 01:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Beacon Pub

non notability - vandal Melaen 00:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Bwah! Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patented nonsense. --Sn0wflake 02:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Patent it too! <G> Nice Horse though! I've added the Nonsense tag if any Administrators look in! Fabartus 02:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. -R. fiend 03:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a meaningful article -Mysidia 04:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Are we sure it is patent nonsense? Isn't The Beacon Pub the name of the horse? Perhaps it is notable in that community. If the name of the horse is The Beacon Pub then I don't think the article is nonsense...possibly non notable, but I don't know that it is particularly harmful either. -Phantym 04:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted. If you can't make heads or tails of it, then it is Patent nonsense (WP:CSD#General#1). If you can make heads or tails of it, it is a very short article with little or no context (WP:CSD#Articles#1). Speedy either way. SWAdair | Talk 06:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Playaz Lounge Crew

Bandcruft with 541 google hits. Ingoolemo talk 00:26, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

  • Delete. Band vanity. No AMG entry (there's a listing for an unrelated "Playaz Lounge", but not this band). Postdlf 00:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The original author also modified horrorcore to add a list of bands (including Wiked Wood and Playaz Lounge Crew, both on VfD today) of which none appear on AMG (the change has since been reverted). --Dachannien 00:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 04:31, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious NPOV problems imply narcissism. --67.140.69.125 04:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity -Phantym 04:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Xcali 15:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable in the hip-hop scene, band vanity. jglc | t | c 16:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Kelly Martin 11:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Siroi Danmakukun

  • Delete. This is non notable, poorly written, has very little to build on as a game stub. 38 google hits.WAvegetarian 00:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everything he said. -Phantym 04:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could be vanity, as most of the Google hits are the author talking about his own game on message boards. Jamyskis 10:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's possible that this article is vanity, but the creator of the game seems to be Japanese, while the IP of the author of the article is from Latin America or the Caribbean, allocated to LACNIC. Aecis 13:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable. Why does this article remind me of Engrish? Aecis 13:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, yes, the game is Japanese, and yes, I'm from south america, that's why my english is not that good. If you feel the article sucks so much write it yourself, I will add the download page to the arcticle, play it, get your own conclusions of the game if mine is not good enough for you. Raquel Sama 22:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 779 google hits with Japanese "白い弾幕くん". I also added some info about the game. --Kusunose 04:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten article per Kusunose. Kappa 08:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, approx. 5000 google hits. Alphax τεχ 11:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. -- BD2412 talk 14:34, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for rewritting my article, it looks a lot better now. I really like that game and I think it deserves a place on wikipedia ^^ Raquel Sama 21:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 21:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Cut Pro 4 and the Art of Filmmaking

This is basically a third-party software manual; I don't see any evidence that there is anything encyclopedic to say about it. Many books are notable, but this one is not. CDC (talk) 00:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - Comment This article was around for over a year with at least an additional 25 lines or so extant in the earlier versions. These effectively were a TOC, but at least gave a reader a sense of what was in the book. As such, the article is something of a book review. If you're gonna vote, take a look at the truncation four or five versions back. I think this needs a clean or possibly an attention, but delete seems a bit overdone as this seems to be more a case of sloppy or overzealous editting to a standard that need not apply for such a narrow focused topic. Fabartus 03:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd argue that tables of contents and back-cover-type summaries are better done by other sites - perhaps Amazon. If that's the only neutral thing to say about a book (reviews aren't designed to be neutral), then I'd argue they're unencyclopedic. Some books have plenty to say about them, such as the context of their production or the influence they've had; think The Bell Curve or The Grapes of Wrath. I don't see any evidence that there is much to say about this book (or most software manuals). CDC (talk) 15:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - but retitle to "Final Cut Pro and the Art of Filmmaking" so that all the editions of this book (one for each version of FCP that comes out) will be discussed in one article. Blackcats 03:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE NN. Vanity. No actual info etc etc. -Snorre/Antwelm 14:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with CDC. --Xcali 15:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It seems to have been a mistake to have it, and the venerability of that mistake isn't really relevant. This particular book seems to be just another in the line of books explaining software and isn't any more notable than the general Que run. Geogre 18:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another how-to book. --Carnildo 21:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Carnildo. carmeld1 02:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. If somebody really wants this info its right there in Amazon. Tobycat 06:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. Alphax τεχ 11:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per other's delete vote rationale. Quale 18:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Mumpower

The owner of an aikido dojo. Not notable. CDC (talk) 00:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. There is a aikido dojo in the United States? I withdraw my vote on this VfD based onne information. SYSS Mouse 03:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete; Comment - there are several, with varying degrees of certification. jglc | t | c 14:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep as per Wikibofh below. jglc | t | c 16:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. non notable
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As one of the earliest founders of US Aikido he seems notable. I've updated the article some, bio-stub'd it and added external links. Wikibofh 14:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NeoJustin 15:24, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reason? Wikibofh 16:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd keep it, since he does seem to be the first American sensei. DS 12:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Topic-based vector space model

This looks to me as original research. The only reference in this article is the paper Topic-based vector space model. This article basically summarizes that paper, which is published in 2003. As such, I would say it is unecyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 01:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete at best, this is highly specialized topic that is unlikely to amount to much more than gibberish to the non-engineering/mathematician reader. In effect, it's a technical DicDef that fails in clarity. In my considered opinion as an Engineer, the cited VSM article, tho' better written, should probably accompany it, for same reasoning. Fabartus 03:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but for a different reason. I don't mind specialized articles; its just that this one is so incredibly poorly written. And mind you, it was written by the very same person (Dominik Kuropka) who wrote the journal article in 2003. If the original author can't be bothered to state their claim clearly, why should we bother? linas 04:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand, a weak keep I have tried to clean the article up a bit, so that it is at least parsable. I certainly wouldn't shed any tears over it if it fell off a cliff, but at least it might be worth keeping long enough to see if someone can expand it. -Phantym 04:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (and redirect) as a little note into the VSM article, and expand that. Pcb21| Pete 07:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into vector space model. As far as I understand it, the vector space model is one of the traditional models in information retrieval, and definitely deserves an article in Wikipedia. The topic-based VSM seems barely notable, but it is published in conference proceedings, so we can mention it in the VSM article. I doubt that lack of clarity is a reason for deletion. Jitse Niesen 09:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with redirect to vector space model. I haven't messed with serious math at greater than high school level for over twenty years, but this article and the accompanying references are quite clear and informative about their subject matter. You transform a document into a series of multidimensional arrays ("vectors in a multidimensional space") which can then be manipulated algorithmically by just about any automatic filtering method ever invented. The reference paper provides a codable schema and some simple examples in SQL to enable similarity metrics to be computed on documents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with redirect to vector space model. Seems notable enough (perhaps barely) to me (see: Wikipedia:Importance), but perhaps not notable enough to warrent it's own separate article (yet!). And of course Jitse is correct about "lack of clarity" not being a valid (i.e. consensually accepted) reason for deletion. And it was original research, when it was first published, but now that it has been published somewhere else, it is perfectly fine (as regards original research) to include in Wikipedia. Paul August ☎ 17:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if expanded, otherwise merge. JamesBurns 02:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just merged the relevant info into Vector space model. Plenty of room for expansion there, if necessary. - dcljr (talk) 03:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge no content for an article of its own (at least at this point). --Poli 18:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into vector space model. Alphax τεχ 11:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP, because it was rewritten by the time the vfd ended. Several users have changed their vote to keep following that rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Barnard

This is unsalvageable POV.WAvegetarian 01:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep in light of recent changes, nice job Android.WAvegetarian 19:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like an advert. Subject may be notable, but we'll have to start from scratch on this one. -- BD2412 talk 01:40, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
    • Keep now that AиDя01D has edited out the POV/advert qualities. -- BD2412 talk 19:33, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with BD2412. Evidently a fan wrote it. Fabartus 03:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Mysidia 04:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing that can be used in a real article -Phantym 04:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree. reasons above. --Chill Pill Bill 05:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with all reasons given. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep the rewrite. Reasonably notable given that this is an eccentric(?) talkshow host in a state. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - at least other spammers are more reserved in their self-praise. Jamyskis 10:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I've de-POV-ified it and made it into a legit stub. Barnard is a regional celebrity in Minnesota, mostly for his Howard Stern-esque antics (and racist comments) on his morning show. I believe he's just notable enough to keep, but I won't be severely heartbroken if this article goes away – I can't stand his show. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:20, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity/AD page. Toasthaven 16:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It is no longer vanity nor an ad. Please look at the changes I made. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, still weird... Alphax τεχ 11:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, it's been made keepworthy.DS 12:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect. I've heard the term, and redirects are cheap. Golbez 08:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Karl

Basically this is a pile. Hot Carl has it right, but is itself a piece of sh*t. Denni☯ 01:46, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

  • Merge with Ass to mouth. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mentioned once in a South Park episode. So what? -- BD2412 talk 03:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ass to mouth --Phantym 04:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 07:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, South Park fans need an encyclopedia to answer their questions. Kappa 07:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/South Park sex positions. Dunc|☺ 08:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Ass to mouth. -- Lochaber 09:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Information has been merged to Southpark episode guide Wikibofh 14:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just reference the term in ATM.
  • Delete, another gem made up by Trey Parker.--EatAlbertaBeef 02:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Damn prudes deleting any pages they don't like. Wikipedia says that's bad policy to delete pages if you just don't like them! Thodin 15:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't see any prudish voting here.Tobycat 06:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeahwhatever. Bad physics is bad physics. Denni☯ 01:35, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete Yesterday I merged this (trivial at best) content into the South Park episode guide for the episode in which it originated. With the information now properly located in the episode guide, I believe it is appropriate to delete the stand-alone article on Hot Karl. As a stand-alone concept it is nothing more than trivial South Park minutiae. It needs the context of the episode guide article to be meaningful.Tobycat 06:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: an anon IP keeps on making a Hot Carl page which now is the second time I have asked for it to be speedied. Can someone help me watch this page to make sure these annoyances don't keep returning? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Why not merge them all and them make it a redirect? That could solve it. Someone kept putting ASCII art of oral sex on that page a week before the votes. Thodin 15:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, info merged already. Alphax τεχ 11:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The destination of the merge is not so clear from the discussion below. Reviewing the article and the comments, I am going to be bold and make the merge into smoking pipe because there doesn't seem to be anything intrinsic to this design that limits it to drug paraphenalia. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apple bong

Wikipedia is not a howto. Whig 01:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Expand apple bong's section in Bong and delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say Wikisource, but should we really be dispensing this at all? Merge non-how-to content with bong. -- BD2412 talk 03:20, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or add to WikiDrugDic! Fabartus 03:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 04:28, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Smoking pipe, create redirect at Apple pipe, then delete Apple bong. This device is not a bong.   —TeknicT-M-C 04:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as outlined by Teknic. This is definitely not a bong.—chris.lawson (talk) 07:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Teknic. -- Lochaber 09:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with bong --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • weak merge No one should make one of these, but the concept is intresting/bizarre --The_stuart 14:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into relevant article. The apple smoking aperatus may not be truely considered a "bong". --Howrealisreal 18:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Apples are hard to light, and the genius of stoners is considerable. If we merge every hare brained toking system, this article will be several megs and have obscurred its information behind gleeful expositions of favorite things. Geogre 18:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into article about drug paraphenalia. These exist, but don't really deserve their own article. Tombride 18:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into smoking pipe. Apples and other fruit are commonly used as an improvised pipe. The idea that it can't work or that it does not work well is simply incorrect. Additionally, it is not a bong by any definition. Triddle 00:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect -- and merge anything useful into bong. - Longhair | Talk 07:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • M/R to smoking pipe/bong. Alphax τεχ 11:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mie Ellebæk Klausen

Google doesn't return anything, seems like vanity. --Dryazan 01:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. All I got was Wikipedia mirrors. --Chill Pill Bill 03:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Google hits are not the be all, end all of notability. Need some Danes to weigh in here. At best, article is a stub. Fabartus 03:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 2 google hits. The sites I went too, although I can't read Danish, had pictures of what looked like high-school teams, which would fit with his age. I will change my vote if he is shown to be a professional player, or if other notability can be established.
Oops. Forgot to sign. --Scimitar 17:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. The original article author also vandalized April 27 and 1986 at the time the article was first created (25-Jan-05). --Dachannien 14:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless he's a pro or on a national team, he's not notable, he's just some kid playing soccer. --Xcali 15:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am Danish and have never heard of her. Since the article doesn't establish notability and she has almost no google hits I vote delete. Thue | talk 17:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons listed above.
Forgot to sign. Matjlav 02:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's true we rely too much on Google. But Soccer is one of the most popular sports on the planet. It's safe to say that a play with any following at all would attract more than 2 hits. ----Isaac R 02:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This site seems to suggest she (Mie's a girl's name) represented a Girls-15 region squad in Denmark.
Forgot to sign Sam Vimes 16:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no concensus). I still merged the content to Skye Sweetnam to flesh out the content on this subject already there. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volio

Another neologism that doesn't seem to have spread--only 17 displayed hits for "my Volio", which doesn't seem to have "spread across the internet" very far, and Zero hits for "my Volio" polio, the resulting usage alleged by this article. Niteowlneils 02:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, an attempt to popularize the term/artist. --Sn0wflake 03:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, vanity. --bainer (talk) 04:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge useful content into the Skye Sweetnam article. Then delete, as it lacks enough notability for its own article. --Scimitar 13:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Skye Sweetnam also could use a reformat by someone familiar with music entry guidelines. jglc | t | c 13:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is one of those misheard lyrics and therefore just a joke. "Excuse me while I kiss this guy," etc. Not a meme, not a popular neologism, just a joke. Geogre 18:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Skye Sweetnam. JamesBurns 02:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have definitely heard the term volio being used in certain message boards I've visited. It is spreading, so if you delete this article it will just have to be written again at some point as the popularity of the word grows. Why not just wait a while and see how it plays out? - Anon(preceding vote not counted)
    • Because that simply isn't the way the Wikipedia works. This encyclopedia deals with facts, not with unlikely possibilities. --Sn0wflake 17:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drini ☎ 17:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: In browsing through the Wikipedia I've come across plenty of recently coined words/terms that have their own articles. For instance the term internets, which was coined by Bush, has its own article. What is the difference exactly? If your going to keep something like 'internets' around than you should keep the article on volio. - Anon
    • response: Ms. Sweetnam does not have quite the same ammount of public exposure as Mr. Bush. --Scimitar 14:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So, Wikipedia allows neologisms from some celebrities but not from others depending on the level of fame achieved by the celeb? Ms. Sweetnam is in fact very well known. She's had a top 40 hit in the states, her album has sold very well considering it's a debut, and her videos have gotten good airplay on Muchmusic and YTV Hitlist. Also, she's a much better speaker than Bush and is obviously much hotter. - I don't have a name
        • Yes. Isn't fame, after all, the metric of notability? If I were to curse out the pope tomorrow morning, no one would care. If Jessica Simpson were to do so, people would be incensed. Why? Because she's more well-known than me. jglc | t | c 13:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. mikka (t) 16:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drum wrench

Delete... WikiDictionary at best. Totally non-notable and non-expandable topic. Most of the text discusses Operator Training and Safety 'stuff'. IMHO, this is a joke article, or possibly an Advert trying hard to present the last line with the phrase 'Man Tool'. In comparison see: http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=6970&productId=40554&R=40554 Fabartus 01:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This article seems like it has potential to expand much further and improve. тəzєті 07:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with drum, partially redundant. Radiant_>|< 09:57, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I created this article to be the first in a series of articles about esoteric tools. There is still much more I could write about this tool, so it could be expanded. I am not trying to advertise for a product, and i guess you guys don't like the "man tool" business, but it is a correct slang version for a drum wrench. User:Garfield 686
  • Keep, real tool, better separate from drum. Kappa 12:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Kappa. One of a series of specialized wrenches. DialUp 13:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Radiant. --Xcali 15:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Its a wrench, not a drum. Don't merge. DS1953 17:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Drum (container) --Carnildo 21:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Drum (container) Shimmin 12:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Wrench#Specialized_wrenches. Manufacturers of these things have less information than this on their websites. A lot of this article is nonsense; "Considered by many to be the standard in drum opening technology, the 168 is quality constructed in the USA and needs almost no service." how can a this wrench require service? It has no moving parts! --Robojames 18:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Prejudicial Comment - The user "User:Garfield 686" is not a log in name. I'm inclusionist by nature, but the article has very little Fact and a lot of fluff. As I sit here, I have three drums less than 100 ft from me. The whole arty is nonsensical. If it were expandable, why has it not changed? Fabartus 23:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment-2 - Since nominating this article, I expanded the Drum (Container) by about eightfold. But it itself needs merged with 44 gallon drum (Brittish) or we should keep both since the idioms vary so much. I just added both links to the above as see alsos [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 03:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 21:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Km130

advertising, not a userpage Josh Parris ✉ 02:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete spam - ban spammer. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and block user. Abuse of Wikipedia. -- BD2412 talk 03:12, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete per Above. Concurr. Can this be Speedy??? Fabartus 04:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam Chill Pill Bill 05:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This user (who also created km130) spammed my talk page, too. jglc | t | c 06:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear advert. Oneliner 10:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete clear advert. Block for spamming and explain wikipedia. Give one more chance to contribute usefully. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I posted a friendly note on Km130's User talk page. I'll await response. jglc | t | c 16:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ATTENTION! ATTENTION! NOT ALL ISSUES CAN BE RESOLVED BY A VfD VOTE! This is not even vaguely covered by Deletion_policy. This is a user abusing his account. Deleting his user page is a waste of time. Let's go get him banned and be done with it. And let's stop using VfD nominations for every little issue! ----Isaac R 02:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising is not acceptable on userpages. VfD is the proper forum to remove them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Its an ad! Spotteddogsdotorg 14:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If this can be covered by deletion policy, delete. --Kiand 17:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete User pages are not for advertising and only edits user has made are to his page, and other user's talk pages. Would have made it a mild keep if they showed some contribution... but no... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertisement A curate's egg 07:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 21:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slawi

Transwikify to the appropriate non-English Wiki and delete. Denni☯ 02:35, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

  • The proper process is to add Template:notenglish, and then wait two weeks before listing it for deletion if it isn't translated. As this article was just posted, this VfD is premature. Postdlf 03:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, premature nomination. Kappa 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, give it its two weeks. --Scimitar 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no such thing as "speedy keep" because keepiing is the default. Improper listing requires no votes at all. The nominator should unlist it on VfD, but even if he or she doesn't, it's rather meaningless unless folks don't read the votes and vote delete anyway. Jumping in to vote "strong keep" and "speedy keep" just looks like finger wagging, which is not very nice. Geogre 18:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. I've seen speedy keep in use, and my intention was certainly not to finger wag, just to get it off VfD asap, to save space. I was under the impression that an article could be speedy kept and the discussion frozen. --Scimitar 19:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, WP:GVFD describes speedy keep as: "a (rarely used) shorthand for 'Keep this article and close the discussion now'. A voter who votes 'Speedy Keep' thinks that the nomination was an improper one that was made purely as vandalism." I don't think that Kappa and Scimitar believed Denni's nomination was in bad faith, so speedy keep doesn't apply here, but it does apply in other cases. Perhaps this shorthand could use some further clarification in WP:GVFD? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • My nomination, and I'm retracting it. I'll keep the template in mind for next time (I'm still new at this part of Wiki). Denni☯ 00:24, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victims Of Hunger

Delete. Just a vanity piece on some guys band. Googled the band and the record label and got nothing relating to them. Necropenguin 02:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. NeoJustin 04:20, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete garage band vanity. JamesBurns 06:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity, non-notable. jglc | t | c 13:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity, move the article to the "special place" where we put these wonderful articles. -- BD2412 talk 14:37, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by SWAdair (Indecipherable) --cesarb 01:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Politics-Britain.

I'm not sure what to make of this, I almost tagged it as {{nonsense}}. As it stands I think it should be deleted as original research. At the very least it needs moved to a better title and given a heavy copyedit JeremyA 02:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Topic is already sanely covered elsewhere. This is POV gibberish, and apparently the author's original research as well. -- BD2412 talk 03:14, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I Added Nonsense tag -- this is gibberish, or a new form of poetry. Churchill was great, but this guy can't connect a thought. Don't know where you all see even research, save perhaps research as to how long this posting can last w/o being deleted! Fabartus 04:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough—I was trying to be gentle under the 'not biting new users' policy. JeremyA 04:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for trying, LOL. That's a policy "more honored in the breach than the observance" around here. Kappa 06:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted. Oddly enough, it did read like a new form of poetry. SWAdair | Talk 05:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homonazi

Homonazi seems to be a term of abuse which is used by nearly no one. It gets 75 hits on Google: fewer than most mispelled words, and fewer than many other nologisms. Since it is a made-up word, it has no definite meaning. - Germaine Hitler 03:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism. -- BD2412 talk 03:16, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. And use the vfd2 template next time so it generates a nice title as it looked like this was part of the previous vote before. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 04:05, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --bainer (talk) 04:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy delete. Text of article right now is as follows: "A "homonazi" is a term of abuse which is used by nearly no one. It gets 75 hits on Google: fewer than most mispelled words, and fewer than many other nologisms. Since it is a made-up word, it has no definite meaning, but the person who put it in Wikipedia wants you to think it means a militant homosexual who has an irrational hatred of heterosexuals-whatever that may be. The term, said person purports, was first heard in general speech and observed in newspaper correspondence about 2003 or 2004. In actuallity it seems to have been made up by some dittohead, who imagines it to be a parallel with the term of abuse conjured up by his hero, Rush Limbaugh, namely feminazi." Sounds like the author's asking for it to be deleted. --Idont Havaname 04:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalized See History. 'Nazi' part of term evidently inpired Hitler to create login name. I did not revert. Was tagged for transwiki. Fabartus 04:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hold your votes folks, this may not belong on Vfd. Fabartus 04:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Um...improving the veracity of the article is not vandalization. And whether or not Wiktonary is foolish enough to accept this as a word, has nothing to do with the need to delete it here. Of course this belongs on VfD! And anyone with any sense would recognize I wasn't inspired by homonazi, but by feminazi. I'm not "Bruce Hitler", darling! - Germaine Hitler 04:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Axon 08:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's an excellent rewrite job. Do not clutter up the Wiktionary with extremely minor neologisms; instead, simply crush underfoot, I mean delete. -- Hoary 09:56, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete - if the term ever catches on, we can still add it. -- AlexR 10:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Germaine Hitler's latest edit of this article leaves it in a state whereby it only acts as a personal attack on both the anon writer, and...Rush Limbaugh? Anyway, while this article should be deleted, I believe it should be kept until an admin has a look at whether Germaine Hitler has broken any rules regarding vicious personal attacks on Wikipedia. Harro5 11:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Eh? The bit that I think you're referring to reads: In actuallity [sic] it [sc. the term] seems to have been made up by some dittohead, who imagines it to be a parallel with the term of abuse conjured up by his hero, Rush Limbaugh, namely feminazi. If that's an attack, it's an attack on the creator of the neologism, not the writer of the article -- unless of course they're identical (which wouldn't surprise me). But I don't think it's an attack. It's a criticism and speculation, and probably shouldn't be there for those reasons. Viciousness level: zero. -- Hoary 12:58, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
      • It was very inappropriate for User:Germaine Hitler to replace the text of the article with the text of his VFD vote, regardless of how lame the original article was. That's a behavior we want to strongly condemn before others copy his example. No vote—Wahoofive (talk) 15:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Nonsense. There's no reason for an inaccurate article to remain inaccurate while we wait for it to be voted out of existence. - Germaine Histler 01:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, there is. For one thing, how do people know what they're voting to delete if you've replaced the content? On Wikipedia, replacing an article's content with your own opinion is called vandalism.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • That's a mixture of the wrong and the simplistic, Wahoofive. While replacement of encyclopedic content with mere personal opinion is bad and arguably vandalism, the VfD template says You are welcome to edit this article. And people can know what they're voting to delete by clicking to look at it; if they worry that the content of the article may be unusually volatile, they're always free to specify the version that they're voting to delete; and they should always specify the reason(s) for deleting it. -- Hoary 05:03, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete this appears to be little more than a homophobic slang term. Tombride 18:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Important note: user has changed name to Germaine Histler. jglc | t | c 20:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah. By "request". Why is that an "important note"? Why are you more concerned with my name than you are with the insertion of homophobic nonsense into the Wikipedia? - Germaine Histler 01:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (As a side note, I've heard "homofascist" used by Phelps (and other nuts) to describe the pro-tolerance agenda. Don't know if that merits its own article, though...) --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Prejudicially Expunge. WikiUserLogeeEditors who use LogoNealisms not worthy of Labelled Content Retention! ---- hctivonibaR caasI
  • Delete. Neologism. If it ever catches on, Wiktionary can add it. --Carnildo 07:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep' I have heard the term in a variety of situations, although only this year. The context in which it was used indicated that it was not an abusive term for homosexuals/gays, but rather those of an exterme ilk. It seems to me that some Wikipedians are proposing deletion of this term because it does not fit in with their politically corrcet viewpoint. Ferdinand. .... added to the top at 11:17 and 11:18, 11 Jun 2005 by 210.246.8.76
  • Delete. Neologism. If found to be in use, then transfer to Wiktionary. Either way, it's not encyclopaedic and doesn't belong here. — Chameleon 12:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meaningless derrogatory term. An An 14:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. -- Karada 14:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and candidate for future speedy deletion. Neologism in micro miniscule use. Fifelfoo 04:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Megan1967 06:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete …Guy M… (soapbox) 03:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, if in doubt merge and redirect to some other article like Feminazi as well as all other -nazi's. -- Zondor 14:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as redirect. (The technical vote was "merge and redirect" but I found nothing to merge.) Rossami (talk) 22:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ILGA-North America

It doesn't seem like we need an article for every branch of a single organization. Delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 01:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a regional branch, one of only six, and a significant organisation in its own right. The European version is very important in the European political sphere. Would you mind explaining why you don't think this branch is worthy of an article, while towns with no inhabitants are? Keep obviously.Grace Note 04:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Sandbox, No content, should not be available for Vfd if is a sincere stub. Abstain on other meritorious considerations per above challanging tone.
    • Assuming it is referenced in another article, (Oh, those annoying red underlines again!!!), some content should be constructed (Offline - use Notepad.exe) after the reference, but before creating the empty article. That way you can clear the red as you go through the Mother Article with pasting, and still have it as an outline while you compose. (I clear a lot of red doing history articles!) Fabartus 04:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as part of ILGA--Phantym 05:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded otherwise merge. JamesBurns 06:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to ILGA Axon 09:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded, otherwise merge. -- AlexR 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, which is absurd anyway since there is nothing to merge. If the material on it in ILGA becomes too extensive, then think about splitting. Haiduc 11:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I highly doubt that anyone would use "ILGA-North America" as a search term, and there's no information in this article to salvage. --Xcali 16:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded, otherwise merge. -- Megan1967 06:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] J eastman

Vanity and verifiability problems, couple of google hits. func(talk) 04:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. func(talk) 04:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 04:24, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would request that this article remain. j eastman is gaining attention in the twin cities as "the" anti-folk artist to see. He's worked with both Jewel and Steve Poltz in the past, which is missing from the original article. Seeing that there are many other local Minneapolis artist, such as Har Mar Superstar and Mark Mallman, I don't believee his work is any less relevant.--Andymosity 00:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: This is user's first post, comment, or edit. jglc | t | c 13:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus) (breakdown: keep 15, delete 12, 4 merge, 3 votes not counted). - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halo (movie)

  • Delete as speculation. Possibly redirect back to Halo (video game series)? --Idont Havaname 04:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I thought that too, but Yahoo News has several articles about it, it appears to be legitimate. --Sysop073 04:09, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Keep I think its real. --Sysop073 04:16, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. See "Wiki is not a Crystal Ball". Also, its One line hardly says anything.Fabartus 04:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The one line is bad, but doesn't merit deletion, and Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball has an exception for "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress"; whether it merits "encyclopedic inclusion" could be argued either way. --Sysop073 04:51, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. I rounded it up a bit, but maybe someone interested in the topic could go further? Karol 05:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speculation - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 06:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to series article. -Sean Curtin 06:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable, no crystal ball necessary. Kappa 06:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Halo (video game series), WP is not a crystal ball. Imagine if we had an article on every script that someone was trying to sell to Hollywood? Just because Microsoft owns it doesn't except it from the crystall ball policy. Merge & redir though, for being somewhat notable. --bainer (talk) 08:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • M&R as above. Radiant_>|< 09:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Halo (video game series), as they say WP is not a crystal ball. MS can pitch it all they like but that doesn't mean it will ever be made, unless the speculation becomes more concrete then imo it's only really worth noting in the context of the game. -- Lochaber 10:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Often-misused crystall ball argument only applies if non-verifiable Proto 10:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. According to news stories on Google News, Fox and Universal studios [1] are negotiating with Microsoft to make this movie. There is already verifiable information and quite a deal of buzz. Capitalistroadster 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Proto said it best above. --ShaunMacPherson 12:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Exempt from crystal ball rule because the game impact is huge, a legitimate, well-known writer wrote the script, and Microsoft bought it. If it were in the stage of the author negotiating with Microsoft, than we'd need that crystal ball. But not at this stage. --Scimitar 13:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Making a statement like "The might be a Spider-Man V released in 2015" would be a crystal ball event, but this is verfiable.23skidoo 17:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is unverifiable. All the article establishes is that some dude wrote a script and that MS bought it. How many scripts are bought in a year that don't ever get made? Note that this was not bought by a studio, but by Microsoft. There is no movie. There is a desire for a movie. Imagine what it would have been like if someone had written an article on the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (movie) back in 1990. After all, a script had been written, and, what's more, the rights had been sold to an actual studio. When did the movie actually come out? 2005. It's just happy feet to think that this is unlike any other crystal ball article. Delete until the thing actually exists. Right now, it isn't even in the process of being born. Geogre 18:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • De;ete, speculation. RickK 19:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it seems verifiable enough Yuckfoo 20:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 21:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WINACB. This "movie" hasn't even entered pre-production yet – all there is is a script. There are many, many more scripts-seeking-a-studio out there that don't have the backing of a giant corporation. Do they all deserve articles? I wouldn't object to a couple of lines being added to the main Halo article about this potential movie, but for it to have its own article at this point in time is rather premature. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have added to the article. In my view, the fact that the film is a Microsoft developed project clearly makes it notable. Microsoft has reached a tentative agreement with 20th Century Fox and Universal Pictures and the project represents the first film project associated with Microsoft is a notable fact. The crystal ball rule should only apply when there are serious doubts about verifiability and/or notability. There are 57 news articles on Google News currently about this project. [2] as at the time of this vote indicating both the presence of verifiable information and notability. If this article were to be deleted, it would only be recreated shortly as the project proceeds. There is obvious potential for this article to expand as well. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You 20:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep An article ON THE speculation isn't crystal ball future predicting. Obviously notable. Obviously verifiable. STudios are fighting over the script, it'll happen. SchmuckyTheCat 15:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment [[3]]... You 23:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep C'mon people, this article shouldn't be deleted. Y'all should know that this article is important. There will be a Halo movie. --John-1107 05:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect Indiana Jones 4, a potential film at a similar stage of development, doesn't have its own page, but is rather included on the Indiana Jones page. A Halo move, while important, should be tried the same way. (Unsigned vote by 65.207.98.2 09:57, Jun 17, 2005
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Mega Man Zero. JeremyA 21:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Megaman Zero

This page is unstructured and is nothing but fancruft. Pages have been speedy deleted for less. Supersaiyanplough 05:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - cruft, non-wikified, unencyclopedic, pick your poison. --FCYTravis 06:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor games cruft. JamesBurns 06:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but leave a stub. It is a notable game series, simply a very poorly written entry. see below. jglc | t | c 06:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but leave a stub....maybe someone else can write something three time shorter and three times better. -Phantym 07:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Delete but leave a stub?" That seems contradictory. Do you maybe mean "Keep, stubbify"? — Gwalla | Talk 07:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Commment: Yes, but in the light of Mega Man Zero, I change to Redirectjglc | t | c 13:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, stubbify. Kappa 07:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean up. It's worthy of its own article but it could use some wikifying and some reorganization. -Tadanisakari 08:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It needs to be cleaned up, but it is notable enough to stay. Some of you should check the definition of 'Cruft'. Sonic Mew 08:22, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewrite as stub. Proto 10:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Change my vote to merge with Mega Man Zero - although all information is duplicated, so a simple redirect might be better. Proto 13:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the significantly better article Mega Man Zero. I'm right in assuming they are related yes? -- Lochaber 10:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Extreme cleanup. The game is very real and notable, but the article is gawd-awful. Salvage is possible. Jamyskis 10:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Scrub that, I'll go with Nestea and say Redirect to Mega Man Zero. A hard learned lesson to check alternative spellings. Jamyskis 14:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - doh *slaps forehead* ;-) Jamyskis 11:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*keep real game, needs a serious rewrite. delete per -Snorre/Antwelm -- The_stuart 14:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)--The_stuart 18:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect per Nestea --Chill Pill Bill 16:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Mega Man Zero. -Snorre/Antwelm 14:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 'merge and redirect Yuckfoo 20:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge / Redir per Nestea. This is a real game, but the article is a mess. Marblespire
  • Keep but cleanup. You 20:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) Merge You (Talk) 19:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the already-written Mega Man Zero, which while itself needs cleanup is in a much better state. --Boco XLVII 19:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I've fallen into the trap of making articles when others exist, it can spawn different versions of articles as we've seen. Perhaps a Wikiproject group to handle redirects would be useful, or perhaps a janitoral Wikigroup if one doesn't exist :). --ShaunMacPherson 12:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Yep, that's easy to do. Sometimes the wiki search helps, but I find my bookmark to use google better. Now, if I can only remember to use it. Oh, this problem also happens when different editors put the same data in different articles. Vegaswikian 06:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 19:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allhood.net

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Advertisement for site/forum. — Gwalla | Talk 05:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - not notable. spam. --Chill Pill Bill 06:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising/vanity. --bainer (talk) 08:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. Street gangs have websites now? Jamyskis 10:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website advertising. -Snorre/Antwelm 14:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam --Xcali 15:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NeoJustin 15:22, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spamvert. -- BD2412 talk 19:50, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non encyclopedic. -- Poli 18:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orion foeller

Vanity. Nice kid, but vanity. FCYTravis 06:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Jamyskis 10:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you're going to write about yourself, capitalisation and punctuation would be nice. jglc | t | c 16:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- BD2412 talk 19:53, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keep up the good work, young Orion, and soon enough you may get your place in an encyclopedia.-- Poli 18:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 17:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coco Bump

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Supposed sexual practice, but with no relevant Google hits (hits were for a setting in a play about Anansi, and a pro wrestler's finisher)—either this is the only sex-related topic not talked about elsewhere on the Internet, or it doesn't exist. — Gwalla | Talk 06:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 06:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Somebody's private slang term. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 12:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. -Snorre/Antwelm 14:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax, probably. If not, then not notable. -- BD2412 talk 19:55, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to ESRI — Gwalla | Talk 21:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Dangermond

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Substub on president of ESRI; not sure how notable that would make him. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 05:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: international company, been around since 1969 [4]. Do we have a precedent for company presidents? --bainer (talk) 08:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to ESRI. Proto 10:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A redirect to ESRI would be better than this substub. He is Mr. ESRI - any bio of him would probably duplicate a good corporate history, so I'd say they're better merged. He's the best-known name in the geographic information systems field, but that's perhaps not saying much. CDC (talk) 19:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Recreated article

I have recreated this article (didn't see this talk page). I wiki-linked his name on the ESRI article and the link just redirected back to ESRI (odd, unexpected behavior). Anyway, he has been instrumental in the development of Geography (academically) and GIS. I think he ought to have a separate article, distinct from ESRI. So, I'll keep what I have written. If others disagree with having this separate article, let's discuss it here. --Aude 04:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the merge note from the article. --Ray 14:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. There are a few userfy votes, but, as it has been pointed out, User:Danny Cockroach appears to have retired from Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Cockroach

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "Vanity. <100 Google hits, most from the author or his own site. Suggest userfy to User:Danny Cockroach". Pretty clearly band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 06:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The website linked to in the article shows that this band is still competing in 'unsigned band' competitions. The tour dates are not exactly wide spread and major. Average Earthman 06:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable band. Maybe when they get signed, tour, and get, you know, fans, then re-add. jglc | t | c 16:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy or delete. Niteowlneils 16:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy --Xcali 19:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy You 20:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to delete. User's only edits are to this article, and to add a link to it to other articles; user was only active for one day (9 June 2005) and has not been back sense. No real point in userfying except to preserve the advertisement. — Gwalla | Talk 20:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ILoveIM

Non-notible, advert with alexa rank of 15,556 [5]. Delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 22:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pit of voles

I speedied this as near-nonsense, but when going through the author's contribs I realized that it was a matter of a well-intentioned new user not knowing what is appropriate in Wikipedia, so I've restored it for VfD.

Chatty, unencyclopedic article on a neologism supposedly found on Fanfiction.net. — Gwalla | Talk 07:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism. --bainer (talk) 08:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and tell the user why it got deleted in a friendly fashion. Mgm|(talk) 10:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd have to say Delete, as it's not in a proper style for an encyclopedia entry, and a slang expression for a particular site (even if it's actually in current use) probably isn't sufficiently notable for a separate entry. Right now, that phrase seems to be more of something that a few bloggers are trying to promote than a currently-widespread nickname for the site, but if it does get sufficiently common, then some mention of it in the main FanFiction.Net article might be warranted (but not a separate article). *Dan* 12:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and help user understand Wikipedia policies. jglc | t | c 15:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, quasi-neologism. -- BD2412 talk 19:56, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Redirect to fanfiction.net, no merge. It's a common (if derogatory) nickname. --Carnildo 21:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shoebox drive

Wikipedia is not a dictioary of all sorts of slang words. Searching for ["Shoebox drive" Shugart] scores a zero on google. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, even if it's true, WP is not a slang dictionary. --bainer (talk) 08:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Trivia. Geogre 19:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary 132.205.44.134 19:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wake Up America Foundation

630 Google hits do not an encyclopedic political organization make. FCYTravis 07:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. When it gets 63,000, we can reconsider. -- Hoary 09:51, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete Proto 10:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - -Snorre/Antwelm 13:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NeoJustin 15:21, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Basically an advert. -- BD2412 talk 16:18, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete ~~~~ 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Sn0wflake 21:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Somewhat notable for those of us familiar with Las Vegas talk radio. Kaibabsquirrel 01:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Masaledaar chole and Vangibhat

These two are both just recipes that have been transwikied to Wikibooks' cookbook. See Wikibooks:Cookbook:Masaledaar chole and Wikibooks:Transwiki:Vangibhat. Delete. --Dmcdevit 07:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

I count 11 "delete" votes, 6 "keep" votes and 2 people who abstained. The article was moved (to correct a typo in the title) and edited during the discussion. One of the keep votes was conditional on a "major rewrite" but was made after the rewrite had been accomplished (which implies that the rewrite may not have been sufficient). Reviewing the history, the rewrite strikes me more as copyedit and formatting that the major overhaul requested by the "delete" voters.

I am going to call this one as a "no concensus" which defaults to keep for now. If the article is not substantially improved in a reasonable period of time, it may become appropriate to renominate the article. Rossami (talk) 22:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High School Conservative Clubs Of Ameica, now moved to High School Conservative Clubs Of America

Non-encyclopedic organization, 610 Google hits do not notability make FCYTravis 07:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe the spelling error had something to do with the lack of hits? Mgm|(talk) 11:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I corrected for the spelling error unconsciously when I typed it into Google. <grin> --FCYTravis 11:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Reads like vanity, and every school or university has several dozens of different clubs, some of which are conservative, and most of which are extremely not notable. Delete. Radiant_>|< 11:18, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral The title is wrong so it should be moved if it is kept, when doing a search for "High School Conservative Clubs Of America" on google there seems to be a lot of news articles on it though, but I didn't notice any mainstream papers though. If GNAA can have it's own article then perhaps this group as well? --ShaunMacPherson 12:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that's apples and oranges, since the GNAA is one group with a reasonable amount of fame, and the HSCCOA are a large number of small local groups, none of which are particularly special. Radiant_>|< 13:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've never seen Wikipedia's systemic bias so nakedly demonstrated. GNAA, if it's famous at all, is known only as a bunch of Slashdot trolls. This group made headlines and has been noticed by UCB School or Law and the National School Boards Association, and the founder has spoken at the California Republican Assembly's anniversary convention. There's no comparison. HSCA is one organization an ordinary person might in fact have read about in a newspaper and want to know about. GNAA is not even well known to anybody who sets his Slashdot filter to a reasonable level. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I agree with Tony Sidaway that this is most certainly a sign of systemic bias on wikipedia. However, I believe we are best served by eliminating both articles. I see no evidence here that this group has done anything important. Indrian 04:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity of `Tim`, nothing else. Bad bad article. -Snorre/Antwelm 13:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite more NPOV and less vainly. The way the article is written currently, it borders on needing deletion for vanity, but the organization does at least have momentary notoriety in the sphere of freedom of speech in the public school setting, in the form of a Washington Times article. As such, it is part of a discourse which the Wikipedia should make an effort to protect. --Dachannien 14:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to "make an effort to protect" anything. It is Wikipedia's purpose to be an encyclopedia. RickK 19:52, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, not-notable, and not even spelled right! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Very poorly written, I would support it with heavy revision. Too much personal promotion of a realatively insignificant figure outside of the local community to which he belongs. - LouieS17:03 Jun 10 2005
  • Delete: Not a single thing at all, but rather a collection of things not discussed as a topic, but, rather, as if they were coherent. I.e. there is no subject here for a discussion of this type. Instead, there would be a mere whiff of a mention at some conservative-politics-related lemma. However, the clubs in question appear to have next to no effect on the world, so it's very doubtful that even such a mention would be worthwhile. (HS clubs in general don't have much effect, except on themselves.) Geogre 19:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for exactly the reasons listed by Andrew Lenahan. -- BD2412 talk 19:44, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Made San Francisco Chronicle and was recorded in the "Faculty in the news" page at UCB School of Law [6]. Also made the Boston Globe and was recorded in the clippings library of the National School Boards Association [7]. With UCB and NSBA recording this activity, I'd feel uncomfortable describing this entry as vanity. It does need cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Lots of things make the newspaper once. It remains to be seen whether this has any long-lasting impact on society - which can only be judged into the future. Right now this organization has done nothing of note except be in the paper. --FCYTravis 10:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This sounds like special pleading to me. We're not making value judgements about the achievements of an organization, we're deciding whether it's reached the level at which it is of interest to more than a few people. We know that UCB School of Law and National School Boards Association are tracking this organisation. We also know that Bueler shared a podium with a Republican Congressman, Tom Tancredo, at the California Republican Assembly's 70th anniversary conference in April, in his role as founder of this organisation. That's more than enough. Defending this article feels rather odd to me as a person whose politics are extreme left wing by US standards and virtually diametrically opposed to everything Bueler stands for, but there you are. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity. Delete, at least until something this organization does something more notable than merely existing. -- Karada 10:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep... but watch closely for NPOV problems. --Unfocused 04:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tony's comparison with the GNAA and other arguments. Kappa 07:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. News coverage makes this notable, and there is enough verifiable information to usefully report on the subject. Quale 18:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep under condition of a major rewrite per Dachannien and Tony Sidaway. StopTheFiling 18:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I gave this article a more-or-less total rewrite on 11th, shortly after Dachannien made his comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. There were a couple of merge votes, however I could not find anything to merge that is not already covered in Television Without Pity. JeremyA 22:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glark

Seems to be about a webpage user or owner. I cannot find much evidence of notability. At any rate, bio articles should not be titled with a web-nickname. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He is however one of the founders of one of the most popular television discussion sites on the Internet, which has beeen quoted in the Entertainment media and is often linked to from TV articles on wikipedia. I would not support deletion, although the article could of course be bettered by editing. --newsjunkie 11:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Mild keep Taken into account Newsjunkie`s info and good article on `twp`. _Must_ be rewritten though. -Snorre/Antwelm 13:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Television Without Pity. I don't think Glark is notable on his own--Xcali 16:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or just redirect: An article on a screen name? No, no. Screen names are not people, so they have no accomplishments. They're just masks present in very specific, non-real contexts. Geogre 19:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a person. RickK 19:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 02:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He is definitely noteworthy, with many sites, in addition to TWoP.
  • Delete, nn. --W(t) 14:32, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. I like TwoP, but nicknames are generally not encyclopedic and this one is no execption. Quale 18:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 21:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flower of Life

Even after a few editors have tried to make sense of it, this is essentially nonsense, virtually content-free. It has been speedily deleted three times, in fact, though with different attempts at content. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, these are beautiful. [8]. Stubbify if necessary. Kappa 10:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks okay to me Proto 10:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kappa's major overhaul of the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I agree that Kappa's rewrite ahs improved things immensely. I've now removed maundering nonsense like "called the "flower of life" because it contains a number of other shapes within its deceptively simple pattern", and commented out the unsourced quotation (even if it stays, something should be said about whether there's any truth in it at all, which I doubt). On that basis, I might change my vote (though I want to do some research on the title, at least, first). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I did find some more info out and added it, although it's still not brilliant. Suspiciously hippy. Proto 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    yes, I've found some more, inclduing the source of most of the material there now ([9]). Would you say that this is a copyvio? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The image you mean? If it's copied straight from a website it is a copyvio. I think it shouldn't be too hard creating some of these oneself if one has a good drawing program however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      More the text, in fact. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks okay to me - -Snorre/Antwelm 13:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Decent article. Heh, at first I thought it was going to be about a MacGuffin from Robotech, the "Invid Flower of Life". — Gwalla | Talk 18:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- DS1953 18:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep related to the ancient (and defunct) religion of platonism. ~~~~ 20:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good little article now thanks to Kappa and Proto. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep needs expansion but looks like a fine piece of information about ancient art.--Poli 18:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Duncharris (clearly made up, author of non-existent book) --cesarb 01:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Courtley

Two google hits. The book he wrote "How to climb mount everest with no feet and ears for dummies" does not appear to be anywhere (big surprise). Not notable, hoax, or what? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete if not Speedy as hoax/nonsense/etc. --FCYTravis 10:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. -- Karada 12:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. -- -Snorre/Antwelm 13:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article was SPEEDY DELETED. JeremyA 22:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex alexander

Alex Alexander is looking for employment, and is under the impression that WP will host an advertisement with a link to his website. Delete as advertising or vanity or both. -- Hoary 09:48, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Deleted after listing on WP:CP--Duk 14:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks encyclopedic quality and person is not notable. Oneliner 10:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Ugh, do I even have to say? jglc | t | c 15:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Good grief. Ridethefire3211 18:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Stop for a second. It's clear this page is vanity and advertisment, which in itself warrants deletion. However, the subject of the article has a pretty impressive legit resume, and gets more than 5000 google hits with "Alex Alexander" + drum [10]. There are three times as much without "drum," however it is clear that not all of them are the subject (but also of note, the search with "drum" omits Alexander's own website, so a real number is hard to pin down). This should be userfied if possible with instructions as to why, or it should be cleaned up, expanded, and de-spammed. For now, I abstain. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 19:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: An article might be possible with proper capitalization, etc., but this is a CV, so we might as well clear the brush away to allow the strong plant to grow (if it can be planted by a 3rd party). Geogre 19:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. --Carnildo 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a copyvio of his webpage and has been reported as such. There may be a case for him to have an article as he is a member of Dido's band and performed music for a film called Whatever Happened to One-eyed Jimmy starring Steve Buscemi, John Turturro and Samuel L. Jackson. However, it would be best to start afresh if someone was inclined to do so. Capitalistroadster 01:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Has now been marked as copyvio. — Phil Welch 01:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising and copyvio. JamesBurns 02:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Jacobson

Vanity/self-promotion, created by User:Lostprophyt (no other edits). Allmusic.com entries are empty. No amazon.com or LOC entries for his fan fiction. "Unlikely Romance" purportedly read by thousands wordwide records only 36 Google hits [11]. JamesBurns 09:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. I've picked some random facts and found out the only online verification is the person's blog. That is simply inadequate. Oneliner 10:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the last time, folks: Unless you're Wil Wheaton or a close approximation thereof, your blog is not noteworthy. jglc | t | c 15:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wil Wheaton himself doesn't campaign for publicity, so that's another distinction between these authors and him. Wikipedia is not a web guide or the Mirror of Erised. Geogre 19:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 17:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Paper Saddam

Unencyclopedic, self promotory, covering matters very limited in importance. Several times reverted from speedy by the creator. Wiki is not a web directory. Recommend delete and the same also for Jay_Barnes for similar reasons. Oneliner 10:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - Term gets 15,400 Google hits. If stub can't be expanded, merge into Internet phenomenon or Internet memes or something of the like. --FCYTravis 10:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I agree with FCYTravis and his comments: "Term gets 15,400 Google hits. If stub can't be expanded, merge into Internet phenomenon or Internet memes or something of the like." --ShaunMacPherson 12:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per google hits. Kappa 12:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cute, but cute doesn't cut it. Also, even if kept, definitely delete Jay Barnes. -- BD2412 talk 12:53, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Merge to Internet memes; this is nowhere near AYBABTU on the meme scale. Radiant_>|< 13:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment ...but what is? --Badlydrawnjeff 13:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable internet memes. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 13:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorre (talk • contribs) 13:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • On a chatty side comment, it's really nifty that he commented at 13:37. jglc | t | c 15:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is likely to be of interest to nobody in less than 10 years. Google is inherently biased towards internet phenomenon; hence, just as you wouldn't delete on article about Africa based on ggogle hits, you shouldn't keep an article on the internet per google hits. --Scimitar 13:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Badlydrawnjeff. jglc | t | c 15:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. The flash animation was kind of funny, but its popularity was brief even as these things go—about a week at the most. Unlike AYBABTU, has had no appreciable impact on the world, or even the Internet, at large. — Gwalla | Talk 18:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Scimitar is right: Google will always bias hugely toward Internet phenomena. If the site is interested even a little bit in advertising itself, 10,000 links is pretty much standard fare for your "Osama in a blender" type of animation. Shared around the office LAN one week, gone the next. Geogre 19:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert. ~~~~ 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn meme. RickK 19:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please as per jglc Yuckfoo 20:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable one-off joke. What Scimitar and Geogre said. CDC (talk) 21:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. With "internet memes", Google hits are everthing, and this only gets around 15000. For comparison, "All your base" and variants get over a million. --Carnildo 21:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Do we need every damn fool with a website with things claiming to be funny here? No! Hohokus 23:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable meme which will be forgotten by most in less than a year. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:33, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. — Phil Welch 02:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable meme. JamesBurns 02:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another short-lived internet meme. --Calton | Talk 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. I agree that, for an internet meme, 15000 Google hits is not encyclopedia worthy. Xoloz 03:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable website promo. Kaibabsquirrel 01:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikiacc 23:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Something that a small number of people on the internet do to get a few giggles. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. Indrian 04:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sergio Saldaña

Non notable. Less than 150 Google hits, many of them unrelated. Personal page does not establish notability. Possible vanity page, authored both in w:en and w:es by the same anonymous Viennese IP (where Saldaña currently resides) Taragui 10:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Possibly student brag-about-my-prof vanity, but does not yet meet criteria for notability in any field. -- BD2412 talk 13:00, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 02:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

I count 13 "delete" votes and 9 "keep" votes (2 new users, 1 unsigned vote discounted. The delete voters clearly cited Wikipedia policy which explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a list of links. The keep voters argued that this is merely a "list of ..." article and we have a precedent of accepting those articles.

One could argue that this is a drill-down article from Podcasting - that it provides examples which expand upon the text of the article. Reviewing podcasting, I note that it already has a few examples in the text and, further, that the podcasting article is not so large that additional examples would be burdensome to that article. Talk:Podcasting, however, explicitly talks about the difficulty that they have had keeping the article from turning into a linkfarm (and, incidentally, provides several additional opinions supporting the perspective that a list of links is inappropriate in Wikipedia).

Looking at the current version of the article, I am compelled to agree that this is a list of links, not a list of encyclopedia topics. Every item in the list is linked externally. None are linked to Wikipedia articles.

I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and decide in line with the stricter reading of WP:NOT. Notable or historically significant podcasts should have a Wikipedia article written on them first and then be linked directly into the Podcasting article. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I am explicitly keeping Talk:List of Podcasts because some of the facts presented on that page were relevant to this decision. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Podcasts

  • Delete This isn't the point of an encyclopaedia. If you aren't convinced by that, also note that it would be impossible to have a meaningful list of podcasts now, you might as well have a list of 'popular TV shows' or 'popular bicycles'. Check 08:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Why delete thee? Let me count the ways. WP:NOT a list of links, not encyclopedic, can never be complete and we'll run out of not paper trying to complete it. If someone wants to create a podcast directory, link to it from podcast. FCYTravis 10:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:52, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Linkfarm and inherently incomplete and inherently out of date. Wikipedia is not the TV Guide for pod people, too. Geogre 19:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. JamesBurns 02:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory.Tobycat 06:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The Wikipedia is not the Internet, nor is it Google. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - but this list will probably reappear in some form; it was created largely to de-clutter podcasting. - DavidWBrooks 12:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If i read podcasting and want to find out more, i can go to list of Podcasts and learn what it is first hand. People expect more from wikipedia these days than just an old-fashioned encyclopedia. Wikipedia is used as a place to kick of one's investigation of a topic, and a list of podcasts complete or otherwise helps people investigate the podcasting topic. The bellman 02:05, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If we're going to delete this list, then we need to delete all other lists on Wikipedia. We can't be selective in what listings we delete and which ones we keep. Do a search on "List of" and you'll see all the various lists that Wikipedia has. I think Wikipedia has the best chance for a NPOV listing of useful and/or entertaining podcasts that places like Google or other Podcast directories just can't compete with. And plus, it's very useful in discovering podcasts that search engines won't have listed. Noah 01:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly violates WP:NOT. Indrian 04:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Week Keep - How is it different than List_of_distributed_computing_projects or List_of_newspapers_in_Canada? --Chiacomo (talk) 17:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is not a directory (yet). Quale 18:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very informative and useful. Tombrend 16:57, 15 June 2005 (EST)
  • Strong delete. Link farm; not an article. —Xezbeth 21:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Good Info. —jacob 16:00, Jun 15, 2005
  • Strong keep. I would keep it. Links are useful to people looking for information. Icemaniceman 19:17, 15 June 2005 (EST)
    • user's second edit to Wikipedia
  • Keep I quote "There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." That is why the listing of podcasts was removed from the main article... so it doesn't dwarf the main article. I have found the links useful. JasonBourne
  • Keep Wikipeida is the sum of all knowledge, correct? Mydotnet 07:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Indrian 21:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep But i also thing there should be a Wikilink...
  • Keep It provides a valuable illustration to the article; why not simply add a title/subtitle explaining it as such? It's the equivalent of adding a movie poster to the article about a movie, except here, the poster is a little too large to be appended to the actual article page. Throw in a disclaimer saying that this list is by no means a comprehensive list but simply one meant to be illustrative, and I think it's a fine addition. jsomethingk 01:14, 17 June 2005
  • Although it's unmaintainable, it does give the reader an idea of what podcasts are like. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with previous editors that Wikipedia should not be a web directory. -- JeremyA 22:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Good reference to what a podcast is like. --Latin Nerd 03:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • user's first edit to Wikipedia
  • Delete. Potentially infinite and not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 03:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Modify. Only list podcasts that have made it into the news, like adamcurry.com, etc. -Mydotnet 16:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alamin Siddique

See also stringed box, which was apparently put on Vfd at the same time I wanted to combine both into a single Vfd entry. Siddique allegedly invented an instrument called "stringed box" in 2002, neither of both check out on Google, and the articles give practically no context to verify this invention -- Ferkelparade π 12:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; Kid born in 1988. 2002, puts strings on box. 2005, puts box in Wikipedia. jglc | t | c 15:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Kid with aspirations but not notable innovations. Geogre 19:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 02:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stringed box

Apparent self-promotion. Does not appear to be notable. Delete unless found to be verifiable and notable. -- Karada 12:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • ````Delete```` Not even anything there at the moment.. -Snorre/Antwelm 13:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing there. --Lord Voldemort 13:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Page has been reverted by User:Ahoerstemeier to contain something, but had been blanked by initial creator, therefore speedy delete. Proto 14:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; Kid born in 1988. 2002, puts strings on box. 2005, puts box in Wikipedia. jglc | t | c 15:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though a worthy article might be written about cigar box fiddles, in which case this might be worth a mention on that page. Smerdis of Tlön 18:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it ever makes it into general production, that may be different. DS1953 00:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable "invention". JamesBurns 02:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete i read something about it on google —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.86.166 (talk • contribs)
    • I hope you're not serious. jglc | t | c 16:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 17:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Barnes

Extremely creative person responsible for crazes and weaselball needs. Since he claims to be widely notable on the 'net, and the ~6500 googles his name gets are not all actually about the same person, I smell a vanity page. Radiant_>|< 13:08, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Immediately. -Snorre/Antwelm 13:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, because even ignoring my elitist tendencies, I can't see this guy being of interest to anyone now, let alone in ten years. --Scimitar 13:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete webmaster, vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or create Rock, Paper, Saddam as an internet meme/trend/noteworthy page and add him as a section. jglc | t | c 15:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Rock Paper Saddam exists and seems as though it will not be Deleted per the VfD discussion. jglc | t | c 18:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. His meme far outstrips him in notability. -- BD2412 talk 16:15, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. --FCYTravis 18:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. — Phil Welch 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 02:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity with a touch of advertising. Vastly overrates his own fame. — Gwalla | Talk 04:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-promo. See also discussion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Rock_Paper_Saddam which tends strongly towards delete at the moment. --Oneliner 12:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Mel Etitis (no content or context) --cesarb 01:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Into Gold

Not much sense keeping this. Lord Voldemort 13:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's just some junk, not an article at all. Douglas 13:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity, delete, page should be a redirect to Alchemy Proto 13:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a speedy delete, and I've speedily deleted it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 22:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GFI Software

This is an advert for GFI. If they want to sell their products they should do it on their own space. The article has little scholarly value. Recommend deletion. Snarfevs 15:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A portion off the article seems to be copy-pasted off of their page: http://www.gfi.com/company/

This may be a copyright violation (although I doubt GFI would enforce it). --12.44.50.252 18:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, on probation Thisone needs verification, rewriting and wikification. If they _are_ as big as they are, in the field as they state, why no notice before? Delete logo. -Snorre/Antwelm 14:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with changes I made, unless its new stublike quality indicates that it should never have been an article at all. All of the images have been (well... are being) submitted under imagevio for deletion. --Dachannien 15:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as now edited. DS1953 18:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please since its been edited Yuckfoo 20:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Well done, Dachannien. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Nice editing from Dachannien. JamesBurns 02:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep In hindsight a cut down was all that was necessary - thanks Dachannien :) Snarfevs 03:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You 20:26, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 22:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perodua MyVi

This seems unimportant. It was just launched this year, not by a major manufacturer. I just don't see why it should be inlcuded at this point.WAvegetarian 00:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge, noting recent update and slightly more research. I don't see why there need be separate pages for each model. Unless the few that there are, an more that seem to be on their way are expanded, I think they should be put at the bottom of Perodua's page.WAvegetarian 00:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should it be deleted? This is a major breakthrough for Perodua. It's a key car for them and this deserves a special article on it compared with other previous mediocore models. ---Haniff 06:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems to me that a make/model of a car (other than when called a separate model due to minor trim packages) deserves its own page. DS1953 18:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a make/model of a car deserves a page even more than an album does. Kappa 21:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Car model Capitalistroadster 01:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Perodua. Local notability not enough for a seperate article. JamesBurns 02:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, If other makes can have individual page for their models, so does Perodua.
  • Keep Same as the other keepers say L-Bit 03:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Daihatsu Sirion. Perodua is a Malaysian company that produces and rebadges Daihatsus. --Pc13 19:55, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep - MyVi needs to be introduced in detail, thus we need a page for it.--Haniff 23:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, when can we remove the deletion note on the MyVi article?--Haniff 23:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toothpaste donut

Delete for nn and nothing links here. Pointless. --Lord Voldemort 14:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Utterly non-notable, probably vanity/self-promotion. Some kids wanting to be the next Bam Margera. jglc | t | c 15:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity, juvenile cry for attention. Funny, tho. -- BD2412 talk 16:13, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete juvenile nonsense. JamesBurns 02:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 22:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planet of Sound

Information could be merged into main Durham Students' Union page but certainly doesn't merit it's own page. Delete as non-noteworthy and maybe a bit of vanity as well? Al Clark 15:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 02:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity and non-notable. Also redirect to Trompe le Monde, while I dig out my old Pixies albums. Leithp 10:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 22:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Principalityofgalore

Recreation of deleted material (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Principality of galore). User is a vandal. Delete as inappropriate use of a user page. - Mike Rosoft 15:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • (Audible sigh). Delete unless user revises page to at least make it predominantly a typical user page instead of a pure recreation of a deleted article. -- BD2412 talk 16:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete more micronaton cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only is it micronationcruft, it's also an advertisement. -- Captain Disdain 17:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I'm pretty lenient on user's pages, but Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider --Xcali 17:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotional user page by known vandal. I listed his "contributions" at WP:VIP, even though he stopped on May 30; I couldn't tell if they'd been alerted there before now. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:32, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact, I have already reported this user as a vandal. (For some reason, my report can no longer be found on the Vandalism in progress page.) - Mike Rosoft 23:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't be surprised if someone (I wonder who) removed it anonymously, but I'm too lazy to check. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • I wasn't that lazy to check, and I found out that it was removed together with other old entries as a part of maintenance of the page. - Mike Rosoft 10:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete micronational cruft. JamesBurns
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3xtreme LAN

Ad for a LAN party (a local computer gaming event). Wikipedia is not a web host. Rhobite 15:37, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • speedy - blatant advertising Algebraist 15:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for advert. jglc | t | c 15:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, advert, prob. not notable. Allow recreation in the future if it can be shown to meet Wikipedia standards. -- BD2412 talk 16:04, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 16:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete spam. It also doesn't help the creator deleted the VfD and wrote the comment: "SHOULD NOT BE DELETED!!!" --Chill Pill Bill 16:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. If this can be speedied, so much the better. -- Captain Disdain 17:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though not speedyable. Thoroughly non-notable transient local event. — Gwalla | Talk 18:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Blanking by the author makes it speedyable. Speedied. — Gwalla | Talk 04:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. Anon creator has blanked the entire article btw. JamesBurns 02:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Not only for the reasons above, but the author blanked it. Nestea 03:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 22:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FlyFF

This is non notable POV.WAvegetarian 15:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, probable vanity, possible advert. (note - POV is not a reason to VfD unless it is irreparable). -- BD2412 talk 15:53, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/ad. rpgcruft. --Xcali 17:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert ~~~~ 20:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not a damn advert, idiots. I made a stub for a new game; wtf is wrong with that?(posted by User:Ziddy)

  • Delete. Not notable, advertising. --Carnildo 21:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a funny kind of advertising that mentions "mindless level grinding and questing", I guess that must appeal to some people. Kappa 01:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: also 144,000 google hits, mostly in Korean, Japanese, Chinese and Thai seems pretty good for a non-notable game. Kappa 01:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe transwiki to a different language, then? As SYSS Mouse says below, it's only in an English beta (at least, that's what I take the comment to mean), and thus I feel it's still non-notable... in English. In China, Korea, or Japan, it may be wildly popular - probably is.
    • Let me also note that User:Ziddy has made four edits: two are his unsigned comments on this VfD, and the other two are edits on FlyFF. jglc | t | c 16:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ad. carmeld1 14:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Boarderline Cleanup, otherise delete. It is a real MMORPG game. It is now at public testing stage and with an english clien, it may qualifes in notability in te future. (Note that I have too little knowledge about the game to cleanup myself). SYSS Mouse 01:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable as of yet. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, "non-notable," considering that many, many people are playing it for hours each day, with message boards devoted to it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziddy (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rebotcasting

Neologism. 22 Google hits, all from the same blog. --Xcali 15:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable neologism. -- BD2412 talk 15:51, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete nn/neologism Tobycat 06:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, I get what a neologism is, but this term is very precise and descriptive. It describes a particular kind of podcast. Maybe if we took out the part about the "guy in his basement"?
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE (10/6) — Gwalla | Talk 21:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Fascism:the bases to conduct at Japanese Nationalism

This is an unwikified, irredeemably NPOV, text dump of someone's personal (poorly written) essay, put into a ludicrous poorly translated namespace. —thames 16:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete as original research and (as translated) gibberish which is too bad because this has a nice All your base are belong to us vibe going. 23skidoo 17:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what yo make of this article. It seems to be mistranslated, presumably from Japanese, and I wasn't able to make heads nor tails of it. Possibly it has some useful information. But it would need major cleanup first. Pass — RJH 17:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost-English ranting about the evils of Japan in WW2. Broken title, irredeemable POV, just this side of patent nonsense. Suspect that 200.46.205.137 (talk · contribs) is the same as 200.46.215.181 (talk · contribs), of Japanese expansion in mainland Asia, also VfDed; similar IP block, similar interests, similar lack of English skills. — Gwalla | Talk 18:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Articles on Imperial Japan for the whole ugly debate. I'd hate to lose this contributor. My Talk page also has some information on his sources now. Wikibofh 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikibofh, and the lack of civility towards a good-faith contributor is troubling. Kappa 21:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "Good faith" doesn't overcome "ranting", "POV", or "incoherent". --Calton | Talk 03:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without assuming bad faith or meaning to be uncivil in any way. The title, structure, and nature of these articles are simply not encyclopedic. Ben-w 21:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rant without usable material. --Wetman 22:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not a rant. It's a translation of period information and is valuable. I will grant you that the title is horrific, but I'd rather move the article to a different title and slowly work on the material than lose it all together. Wikibofh 00:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article was up for less than 2 hours when it got slapped with a VfD. I see potential here. Isn't that the idea of a wiki? Why do people sift through recent changes looking to axe articles like this rather than posting {{cleanup}} tags? DS1953 22:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no sound basis for keeping an article with the title "Japanese Fascism:the bases to conduct at Japanese Nationalism". None. The following articles already exist, with coherent titles and content: Japanese nationalism, Meiji period, Taisho democracy, Occupied Japan, Pacific War. Those articles already exist and can be added to and edited. Extract any useful content from this article and add it there. I don't think it is incivil, hurtful, or intolerant to state that these articles do not come close to an acceptable standard of writing or organization, whether they're two hours old or two years. Nor does that suggest bad faith on the part of the contributor or that the pieces themselves are worthless: there is indeed potential in the content. Ben-w 23:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment: You agree that there is content here, but you want to delete because of the title? Heck, that's the easiest thing to change. Wikibofh 00:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I addressed this in my talk page in response, but just for completeness sake, the confusion is your first sentence where you say: There is no sound basis for keeping an article with the title "Japanese Fascism:the bases to conduct at Japanese Nationalism". I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you, but IMO the best way to deal with it is to fix the article in place (I've started) and then to piece it up and merge to the articles you mention. Wikibofh 22:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The solution for a bad title is a move, not a delete. DS1953 00:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to where? I don't think this belongs here, and unless you have some suggestions for a new name, I'd say delete. NatusRoma 03:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incomprehensible. No offense to the original contributor, but I don't think an article that goes through two translations (Japanese → Spanish → English) is reliable, especially when there are other articles that already exist that deal with its subject. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the order is English->Spanish->English and the author is trying to actually paraphrase and avoid copyvio. Hard to argue with that sentiment, even if it's very difficult to decipher, and I've done my fair share of it. Wikibofh 00:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to clarify (1) is it correct to infer from your comment that the source materials are in English? (2) Don't you suppose that in this case there is another translation step given the quality of the english: english → spanish → broken english → english. My point in bringing this up are the multiple information loss/distortion points. I've worked with this contributor too and agree with you that the content is being offered in good faith. I am wishing that there was a better and more reliable way to get this information added to Wikipedia. Tobycat 06:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes that is my understanding. Yes, I agree with you. However, I don't see anyone else doing this work.  :( I try to do my darndest when I do the copyedits, but I could be making subtle mistakes. Wikibofh 22:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Japanese nationalism, no redirect. JamesBurns 02:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete incoherent ranting. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have every sympathy for the contributor, and will vote Keep because I am certain the topic is notable and the contribution in good faith. However, material this mangled can't stay in Wikipedia indefinitely, so I hope for a speedy Cleanup. Xoloz 03:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. However noble the contributor's intentions, this is gibberish, which as such is not encyclopedic nor forms the basis for material that's encyclopedic. More importantly, as has been argued above, these subjects have already been covered in a host of other articles. carmeld1 15:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Commment. Deja-vu. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/War Crimes in Asia Mainland. Leithp 10:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean-up and Merge with Japanese nationalism. There is some interesting stuff in there, and it seems fairly NPOV. The choice of making it a stand-alone article is unfortunate. UnHoly 14:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentIf interesting seeing your comments.ones are very hard destructive,others are conciliatory and other some observed your possibly value.if naturally inherent to all human groups seeing this i only in my very little limits to sended any information at yours but if ones liked and others not,i no poses trouble,if liked to deleted(destroy in other words) or keep,if your decision...i liked much seeing your deletion meetings,for your democratic rigt for elect any posibility at respect of final decision over articles.

Preciselly for this diffrent opinions i reinstall this present articleto links area,awaiting your final decision.

  • Delete, quit whining and expecting special treatment for rambling, poorly-written, POV material. This isn't about you. Anything usable should go in the many, many, many existing articles about Japanese history and World War II. Ben-w 19:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing here that shouldn't be in Japanese Fascism if it survives. If it doesn't this should be deleted along with it. DJ Clayworth 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
  • Keep The Wikipedia project must not be blackmailed by the Japanese neo-fascist historical revisionists. Ignore them. Everton 09:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montankus

32 Google hits, most are calendar entries. Per article, plays one gig per year. Interesting, but not notable. --Xcali 17:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 02:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Montankus has been an underground wonder and will probably remain so." -- BD2412 talk 17:10, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interlync Internet Services, inc.

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interlync and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kevin kohn.

It's advertizing blurb for a common-or-garden ISP that is not exactly a household name. Wikipedia is not a directory of ISPs. Uncle G 17:13, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

  • Thanks for getting around to this. Delete as above. jglc | t | c 18:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable company. DS1953 18:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nn. -- BD2412 talk 19:38, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete If it walks like an ad, talks like an ad, its an ad. You would think that they would stick it on their own web page! Hohokus 23:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Thinly disguised ad. You 20:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interlync

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interlync Internet Services, inc. and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kevin kohn.

It's advertizing blurb for a common-or-garden ISP that is not exactly a household name. Wikipedia is not a directory of ISPs. Uncle G 17:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

  • Thanks for getting around to this. Delete as above. jglc | t | c 18:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable company. DS1953 18:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy ad --Xcali 18:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nn. -- BD2412 talk 19:38, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Hellenism.  Grue  17:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hellenic Empire

As this article currently stands, it is a POV account of Byzantine Empire. While Google returns some examples of this phrase as an alternative name for the Byzantine Empire, the pages that use it are not in fluent English & fail to prove this term has any significant usage; further, other Google results include one to an Omega-Gear member (first hit) & a couple of others referring to different periods of ancient history, arguing that at best this should be converted to a disambiguation page. No articles link to it. -- llywrch 17:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmph, well I've just been reading a book about the archaelogical search for evidence for any truth behind the legend of the Trojan War, and in it it says the idea of Hellenism didn't emerge until the fifteenth century - before that, Greek monks habitually crossed themselves at Plato's name, that 'Hellenic Satan'. Hellenism meant pagan, you see. Of course, it never happened because the Turks took Constantinople in 1453, Athens in 1456 and Morea in 1460. Given that the Byzantines were actively hostile to Pagan Hellenism, then, this doesn't appear to be an appropriate term to use. Average Earthman 18:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

????? KEEP THIS ARTICLE! I am the original editor. I Have no idea what provoked you to consider this for deletion. " You reasoning suggests there is a anglo-centric nature of the internet, it is not my problem if you cant find a decent link. Despite this little upset I would like help in getting maps showing the Empire. Other than that this article should link to Ottoman, Roman, Byzantine, nad perhaps Late Byzantine.

The reason it was called Hellenic is because the Greeks felt that Hellenic was no longer a term for Pagan or atleast the roots of Paganism and Hellenism were lost. They felt proud to be still Hellenes and as such reverted in teh late 1200 to calling themselves as Greeks or Hellenes. There should be no argument about their CHristianity at this stage in history, afterall they stood alone in 1453 against the Wave of Ottoman Turks and the Islamic Flood that would take the rest of Europe. Its not included in any other topic because you deleted its occurance from said topic please do not do that.

Because the term is a historical term ie like Byzantine is a historical term it should not be expanded much because it is really the official Roman Empire. That is why there should be a links from Roman EMpire to this phrase Hellenic Empire 1204AD if we consider the 4th crusade as the point where it was only Greece and Anatolia making up the Roman Empire. However, I put it a few years ahead for several and many other reasons it is up to debate.

Please sign your comments in the future. Not only is this simple to do, it will also give your comments credibility. -- llywrch 22:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be redundant with Byzantium, and the name doesn't seem to be in widespread-enough usage to warrent a redirect. --Carnildo 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a non-mainstream POV fork of the Byzantium article. Stbalbach 15:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I haven't voted yet, I just stated that I wasn't aware, from what I know of the history of that time, that what the West now calls the Byzantine Empire was calling itself anything other than the Roman Empire (and don't bother telling us that the west had called it the Greek Empire, that was because they wanted to appropriate the title of Roman Empire for themselves). A Google for "Hellenic Empire" in .edu sites suggest that Western historians are more likely to consider that means Alexander's (ie. most of the mere 16 hits). I'm not sure what provoked the question about Christianity, the book I had at hand seemed to suggest they were devoutly Christian, hence their distaste for the pagan past of the area. But put bluntly, if this term is almost never used in the English language in the sense used here, why should Wikipedia start, unless there is some documented evidence that the people genuinely did refer to themselves as a Hellenic Empire? Average Earthman 22:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I also haven't voted, but Hellenism refers to the period of around 232 BC - 50 BC, when Alexander the Great's empire disintegrated into the Ptolemies, Seleucids, Antiochans, and Macedonians. When I hear "Hellenic empire," I think immediately of redirect to hellenistic empire or Hellenism. Otherwise, what we have is "Greek-speaking empire," which is not really definitie enough to discuss in political terms. Geogre 02:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • My college room-mate, a native Greek, alerted to the currency of this term in Greece. I'm sure a redirect is warranted, and a separate article may be, if a contributor can explain the special usage and meaning of the term to Hellenes. Xoloz 03:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can you ask your roommate for some help with cites on this usage? I ask this not because I don't believe that this is the case, but I suspect this would be a useful POV to document. And because, unfortunately, all that the original author appears able to add to this is a repetition (with typos) that this is the only valid interpretation of the subject. -- llywrch 09:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, a search of "Hellenic Empire of Byzantium" returns 23 hits -- great, not very helpful, although at least these few are known to refer to the so-called Eastern Roman Empire. Sadly, college was several years ago, so the room-mate is not immediately available. What is important here is that the Greeks, who call themselves Hellenes today, label whatever Empires they can "Hellenic" as an expression of their patriotism. I don't think they make the claim that Byzantium widely called itself "Hellenic," but it didn't widely call itself "Byzantine" either -- as suggested, the people thought of themselves as Rome of the East. However, present-day Greeks do call Byzantium the Hellenic Empire (if our ranting contributor establishes anything, it is this), and might search for such here. Until a native Greek (willing to sign his talk contributions) comes along with cites to expand "Hellenic Empire," I suggest a Disambigulation at Hellenic Empire that says that the term may refer to either the Empire of Alexander or the Empire of Byzantium. Sound reasonable? Xoloz 11:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I completey agree Xoloz. The article as it stands doesn't really offer anything useful in its current form. It might even be worthwhile to put in a little note that 'Hellenic Empire' is what greeks refer to the late Byzantine Empire as. Masamax 22:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Either deletion or a disambiguation is with me. As for a usable explantion of the Greek POV on this topic, I guess we'll just add it to that long list of wanted topics. -- llywrch 00:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned it is an important time period different from Alexander the Greats "Hellenistic Empire". The Only place in former Greek lands in Europe that was not over-run by enemy forces was the location of Athens known as Hellas. During the ROman Empire this area of the Greek peninsula was called Hellas. In many historical accounts after the fourth crusade the term "Hellenes" starting to be used in reference to the area and to those last inhabitants of COnstantinople during the final siege 1453AD. The last emporer of the EMpire adressed his people as Greeks or Hellenes. So this is an important period in terms of cultural shift. So the term simply refers to either post fourth crusade 1204AD - 1453AD. Or it can also refer to when the empire simply consisted of Greece and Constantinople. It is a different period to the rest of Rome and should not really be included in the main topic of the Roman Empire even if it is infact the final stage or last existance of that empire.

  • Rewrite or Delete. As I understant, this is a correct name for the times in which the Byzantine Empire was composed of Greek-only lands, as in ca. 1400. Furthermore, it is a translation from the Greek of the way the Greeks called the Bizantine Empire. Since this is not a dictionary, but an enciclopedia, it shuld be deleted, or at least completely rewritten.--Panairjdde 10:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful explanation belonging on a separate page in an encyclopedia. Kappa 07:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sysin 20:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Bill Henley

Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indoeuropean, Turks and Finno-Ugrians in Europe

dubious POV PatGallacher 18:23, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

I will explain my reasons for calling for 'delete a bit further:- 1. This is a version of the Nostratic language theories, which is encyclopedic, but the article notes correctly that these theories are highly controversia. 2. This is a POV peddling of one version of the Nostratic theory. 3. It doesn't even argue its case very well, it's a bit of a ramble. PatGallacher 18:31, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a report of anything. --Wetman 23:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 02:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete patently nonsensical original research. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (any salvagable NPOV content) into the Eurasiatic languages article, as it seems to address the same basic theory - minus the angle about Noah's arc and Mt. Arat. Blackcats 07:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Total nonsense. --Jyril 21:55, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcast government

At best this is a neologism. There are 142 hits on Google, almost all of which are simply as a result of this articlebeing on Wikipedia, with the one or two others being not relevant. Delete DS1953 18:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Scimitar 19:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No such thing. -- BD2412 talk 14:43, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emaciate

Delete for nn and band vanity --Lord Voldemort 19:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I was going to list it but Lord Voldemort beat me to it. No combination of the current band members' names with Emaciate gives more than 10 Google hits. Using the former members' names gives < 100. --Xcali 19:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bandity. -- BD2412 talk 19:59, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 03:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Concur with the above. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 00:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hillard Primeaux

This was tagged for speedy deletion with "WP is not a memorial" - that's right, and this looks like a memorial to me, but that's not a speedy deletion reason, so here we are. CDC (talk) 19:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm the one who speedied it. We really need to take a good hard look at WP:CSD. We keep coming up against things that don't the criteria and then get unanimous votes to delete. --Xcali 21:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 03:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a memorial. You 20:35, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 22:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mission: Impossible III

This page is wrong for very many reasons: there is no information, no sources, no verifiability; Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball; user has a history of vandalism; &c. Delete or speedy this, please. jglc | t | c 20:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify this VfD: At the time that I put it up for voting, the only text on the page was the following:
"A wonderful movie, as one of the producers, I know it will go far. I'm not really a producer though, i'm just some random guy who happened to see one scene filming."
In its current incarnation, as a stub for future development as the movie is filmed, goes into postproduction, and is released, it is a keep. jglc | t | c 01:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Article writer lies in the text, than admits to lying. Nothing more than speculation. --Scimitar 20:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as rewritten. --Scimitar 22:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Decided to rewrite it - for now. Make an article about it in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, it seems the movie just got green lighted. Reuters --Chill Pill Bill 20:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'll be looking for your rewrite. :) jglc | t | c 20:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Looks good. jglc | t | c 21:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Sn0wflake 21:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now it makes sense. DS1953 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia should be comprehensive and this sort of thing is of wide interest, though not of interest to me. CalJW 00:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I know, but the entry as previously written was nonsense. It's fine now. jglc | t | c 00:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't qualify for the "crystal ball" rule because it is confirmed upcoming event for which planning is under way (a la Casino Royale (2006 movie)). 23skidoo 01:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ChillPillBill's rewrite. As for Halo (movie) this is a movie with verifiable information about it and is notable because of the success of the first two films. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThe movie is now confirmed - no need for deletion. --Sb2k4 15:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Taku 23:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Duncharris (personal attack on schoolfriend complete with phone number) --cesarb 01:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shauna Ford

Page is a personal attack (seemingly by one high school student against another), lists a personal phone number, &c. Is this a candidate for a speedy? jglc | t | c 20:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • No, but I've removed the phone number. Meelar (talk) 20:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • How 'bout just a delete then. For non-notability, ostensibly. jglc | t | c 20:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly vanity/malicious page. Gblaz 20:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is there any way to delete the history so that private information is protected?23skidoo 01:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep or merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Andrew's Junior School

More primary school cruft. Dunc|☺ 20:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • keep' all of these please dunc why do you keep on doing this? Yuckfoo 20:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well firstly because it's unnotable cruft, secondly because it needs to be demonstrated that attempts to subvert vfd and intimidate voters by organising votes to keep is wrong. There was a previous concensus to delete unnnotable primary schools and for good reason. Now whether its an intentional stance or not, you get the yes men to come along and vote for you. Dunc|☺ 20:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah, Dunc. Until this gets solved in the Schools policy, it makes no sense to keep adding them on here. jglc | t | c 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and resist attempts to subvert vfd and intimidate voters by flooding it with hostile nominations. Kappa 21:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I think from a reader-friendly point of view this group of related schools that share a name would probably be better served merged into a single article. DS1953 21:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and resist attempts to subvert vfd and keep worthless articles. --Carnildo 21:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly non-notable; article is complete schoolcruft. Hermione1980 22:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Saint Andrew's School, then delete. This "article" is a single sentence, and were it on any other subject there would not be a host of keep votes. Also, Kappa's suggestion that this is an attempt to subvert VfD is out of line. This article is a perfectly acceptable candidate for deletion due to a lack of content. This actually should qualify for speedy because it only gives information that is readily available in the article's title. I would advise a little less rhetoric and a little more reasoning on the article's qualities, rather than its subject matter. --Scimitar 22:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: If it was about the article, Dunc could have used a cleanup tag, or gone ahead and merged it. Kappa 00:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment:From wikipedia's policy page on vanity articles: Usually, vanity authors write about themselves, their significant others, or their high schools (italics mine). Simply being about a school does not make that article immune to VfD. --Scimitar 22:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, schoolcruft, and resist attempts to subvert vfd and intimidate voters by flooding it with hostile keep votes and comments. RickK 23:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please do something useful instead. CalJW 00:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Please write something useful instead. There are dozens of reasons for this to be deleted. It is vanity. It is a non-exclusive name. It has no useful content. Then again, I'm actually reading the article. Do the Schoolwatch people do the same? Geogre 02:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable schools cruft. JamesBurns 03:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see nothing notable about this school. What makes it different from millions of other primary schools? NatusRoma 03:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to city article. I would think that the nominator would find the process of Merging to be easier then putting these on VfD. Did anyone look at Saint Andrew's School which has no text and only pictures and external links? Vegaswikian 06:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • To me, Merging this with Saint Andrew's School seems to be the best course of action right now. That article looks a little starved (and probably qualifies for a speedy deletion) right now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep or merge with Saint Andrew's School. Good stub. Nothing wrong with it. The last 70 or so school deletion discussions that have reached a conclusion at the time of writing have all ended in keep (one article about a school playing field was merged). WP:SCH contains good advice on how to avoid fruitless school deletion discussions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. I have to point out Saint Andrew's School does not even exist as an entity, and actually needs removal overtime.--Huaiwei 14:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do you say Saint Andrew's School does not exist? DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That's because the so-called "St. Andrew's group of schools" merely describes a group of affiliated schools. It is not one educational institution, the same way Anglo-Chinese School actually dosent exist as one insitution either. There are many other similar groups of schools with affiliations, such as the schools in the Rafflesian umbrella (Raffles Institution, Raffles Junior College, Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) etc. Unless schools actually merge into one, like what happened with Hwa Chong Institution, it makes little sense to be talking about a brand name instead of the various institutions represented.--Huaiwei 17:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Los Angeles Unified School District is a group of affiliated schools. University of Oxford is a group of affiliated colleges. The United States of America is a group of affiliated states. Saint Andrew's School share a principal, site, and management with its affiliated schools and if these articles are merged, is the best place for them. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmm....not really. SAJS's principal is Mrs Wai Yin Pryke. SASS's is Mrs Belinda Charles. SAJC's Mrs Lim Chye Tin. SAJC's new campus is still being constructed as we speak, and currently is located away from the other schools. We have other affiliated schools moving to neighbouring sites, but that dosent mean the school has merged into one. For clear definitions of the status of Singapore schools, it is far better to refer to the School information Service of Singapore's Ministry of Education page instead, because so long that these schools are listed seperately there, they are still officially considered seperate institutions.--Huaiwei 19:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Okay, I goofed on using the term "principal" but the rest is true. Perhaps the head of SAS is still termed "warden"? Anyway, it's not necessary for the physical schools to be merged for the there to be an article on Saint Andrew's School. Furthermore, Page 4 of the history of Saint Andrew's School and others show these schools all developed from the same institution. We have verged from the focus of discussion of this page. My point is that SAS page would be the site of merger of SAJS, if necessary. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • I understand your concerns, but this phenomena of schools sharing the same heritage, or having split off from the same institution, is still not unique enough to warrant special treatment, at least in the Singaporean context. We do have several schools with different school names, yet are closely affiliated, and it is not always practical to lump them together (for eg, my former sch, Montfort Secondary School, is affiliated to St. Gabriel's Secondary School and Assumption English school, along with the associated primary/junior schools. What shall we call this unified entity, then? In addition, all these schools are Catholic schools, which are in turn affiliated to all other Catholic schools in Singapore. Where do we draw the line?). I personally feel that each school should have its own entry, provided they have substaintial material which are encyclopedic.--Huaiwei 20:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current article is lacking because of systemic bias, not because its non-notable. How is it going to grow if you keep killing it off when they are young? -- Natalinasmpf 15:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or expand/rewrite. — Instantnood 19:38, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:58, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find it sad that Duncharris (Dunc) has practically admitted to breaching WP:POINT simply because he doesn't agree with the recent trend toward keeping schools. --Unfocused 04:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vsion 06:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Da 'Sco Mon 08:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid stub. SchmuckyTheCat 15:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep RJH 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another so-called article that harms wikipedia by being totally useless. Indrian 04:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 18:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Saint Andrew's School and expand that one instead. StopTheFiling 18:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Saint Andrew's School. While we are on the subject, pull in Saint Andrew's Secondary School and Saint Andrew's Junior College and put it all in one page. Those pages whould also be up for deletion too, Speedy in fact. I feel that this does not warrant having 4 seperate pages with lack of detail. By the way, most of the pictures in the template don't apply to this school. Huaiwei, I understand what you are talking about there, but the 3 schools were originally one school ever since its founding (1862) until the 1970s or 80s when the 3 schools then split. So in essence, they are actually the one and the same school. This is not the same as brother/sister school affiliation (eg St. Andrew's and St. Margaret's) or affiliation by religious movement (Fairfield Methodist and Paya Lebar Methodist) or branch schools (Anglo Chinese School (Independent) and Anglo Chinese School (Barker Road)). I was from St. Andrew's, by the way. Sandstorm6299 14:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep or merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holymead Junior school

Another quality article about a primary school. Dunc|☺ 20:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • keep but please send to be cleaned up Yuckfoo 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah, Dunc. Until this gets solved in the Schools policy, it makes no sense to keep adding them on here. jglc | t | c 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, another fixable article about a primary school. Kappa 20:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, another content-free primary-school article. --Carnildo 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Article might be able to be expanded, but right now it's a schoolcruft stub. Hermione1980 22:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The user who created it only made this one article, and he/she did it more than a month ago. I have difficulty seeing expansion anytime soon, in the meantime it is nearly free of content. --Scimitar 22:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, another vanity stub about a primary school. RickK 23:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We should have articles on all schools. CalJW 00:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Until there is a consensus policy, not listing school articles of zero worth like this one on VfD would mean that they would all be kept. No more trash substubs on indistinguishable entities. Authors of these articles aren't even trying to inform or give the slightest indication of what makes their subject worth knowing about. These things should not be kept, as they're not articles, no matter the consensus (to be reached on February 30th, I think) on schools. Geogre 02:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even the mention of the filming of the scene from the Casualty television show doesn't merit a separate article. NatusRoma 03:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not even worth a merge. Vegaswikian 06:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even the notability proponents should be satisfied with this because the grounds have been used as a setting for a major TV series. And see WP:SCH on how to aviod these fruitless discussions. Needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So if my house were to be used as the major setting of a tv series, would it deserve an article? Indrian 04:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean if it were used as the setting of an episode in a major TV series? Certainly! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools belong in Wikipedia. Unfocused 04:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.-Da 'Sco Mon 08:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep SchmuckyTheCat 15:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep RJH 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am once again disguted by the knee-jerk reactions that appear to be on display here. This is not an article, therefore it should not be kept under any circumstances. If the original authors are too lazy to provide any useful information on the subject, more responsible users should not let the page stand and reflect poorly on the project. Indrian 04:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't be too hard on the original authors, they're only kids. Kappa 10:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment There seems to be an element of extreme immediatism here. Even the original article as VfD'd was an article and gave the school's name, type, location, head teacher's name, a list of teachers and helpers, and a list of classes and clubs. Not bad for preteens, as Kappa says. The article only needed a little cleanup, a task which has been undertaken by Kappa, DoubleBlue and CalJW. The article now contains the Casualty reference and summarises the OFSTED report. It's now a very useful article about this urban primary school and a good refutation of the claim that school stubs are unencyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I know that you and many others consider these additions improvements, and I always admire users who vote to keep and actually make efforts to improve the articles in question, but I do not see these improvements as substanative. Adding more facts about a subject and improving an article can be two very different things. An encyclopedia is supposed to sift through the facts and summarize the important aspects of a topic, not just collect random bits of factual information. This article now has more information, but it still does not provide information that makes it a useful contribution to an encyclopedia. Indrian 17:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have no problem with your perception that the article isn't worth keeping and the improvements are nothing much. What concerned me was solely your description of the votes to keep as "knee-jerk reactions" and the suggestion that it was the duty of responsible editors to delete the article. Actually that isn't even consistent with our deletion policy. While I can accept that an article may appear to some to be beyond hope, your comment didn't seem to allow for the fact that other editors do not share your view of this particular article and, making an honest effort to improve the article, don't deserve to be treated with disgust or disdain. We may differ in our opinions, but we are all working towards the same end. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • This I do realize, and I am sorry if my comments seemed a bit too harsh to you. Indrian 18:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 18:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep or merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clockhouse Junior School

See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clockhouse Primary school

Yet another article on a unnotable primary school. Dunc|☺ 20:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • keep this too it is a fair stub Yuckfoo 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah, Dunc. Until this gets solved in the Schools policy, it makes no sense to keep adding them on here. jglc | t | c 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good stub. Don't see any reason not to hang on to this part of the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 20:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So's my phonebook but that's going into Wikipedia, no is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Unverifiable. copvio Kappa 21:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another article stating how average the a school is. --Carnildo 21:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Mild schoolcruft. Stub that gives minimal information. Hermione1980 22:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, schoolcruft. School vanity is an unnecessary part of the sum of human knowledge (not that trying to create such is a goal of Wikipedia, despite contentions to the contrary). RickK 23:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that wikipedia is not trying to compile and distribute the sum of human knowledge? 01:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Kappa 01:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • If you really believed that it were, Kappa, you would never have voted delete on a single solitary article. RickK 04:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Why would you ever say such a thing— are you conveniently dismissing votes on articles which are blatant nonsense or acts of vandalism? Your comment is unreasonable. —RaD Man (talk) 22:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • If you were consistant, you would think that even nonsense and acts of vandalism are all parts of the sum of human knowledge. RickK 21:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
            • LOL, I wouldn't want it to be kept in the article space, possibly it could be transwikied to "wikivandilism" or somewhere. User:Iasson would be the expert. Kappa 21:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We should have articles on all schools. CalJW 00:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Is there anything that sets this school apart from others, except its name? The authors don't tell us, if there is. Geogre 02:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This school is simply average, and thus simply unencyclopedic. NatusRoma 03:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another school. Merge into London Borough of Havering or Delete. --Calton | Talk 03:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Vegaswikian 06:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with London Borough of Havering. If this school is notable it is only at a very local level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with London Borough of Havering. Good stub. I like to see attention paid to OFSTED reports. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 17:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:03, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools belong on Wikipedia. Stubs take time to grow. --Unfocused 04:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We know all the arguments now, and WP:SCH seems to have failed. --Carnildo 05:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. The success of WP:SCH can be judged by the sheer number of merge or keep votes for school articles. Overwhelming, I've never seen anything like this on VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Da 'Sco Mon 08:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep SchmuckyTheCat 15:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with what Unfocused said. -CunningLinguist 16:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH 16:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also, I don't think WP:SCH can be judged as a success just because it managed to rally the pro-school hordes. It should have resolved the issue, not simply given carte blanche to any vanity page writer to put in an article consisting of "Non-Notable High is a highschool in Nebraska". As it is now, any school article, regardless of content or quality, will be vociferiously defended by inclusionists. --Scimitar 19:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. VfD isn't a place for discussing article quality or for getting rid of poorly written articles. If an article is bad, work on improving it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another worse than useless page on another unremarkable educational institution. It is a shame that there are a large number of users that appear to provide knee-jerk votes to keep all articles with the word school in them regardless of their encyclopedic value. Indrian 04:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 18:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Duncharris ("an ugly child with small hands and a girlish figure") --cesarb 01:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jon zimmerman

Yet another anonymous personal attack on some random, non-notable subject. Delete and we really need to get these speedied. jglc | t | c 20:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Gwalla (content was: 'The coolest kid in the whole fucking world. Man, this kid is so cool, he has an article on this website about him. Fuck man, this kid rocks.') --cesarb 01:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Kritzman

What a bad ass.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. It is still untranslated after almost a month now. Rossami (talk) 23:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iwno

Article in Polish which has been on Pages needing translation for more than 14 days. Physchim62 20:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

According to xrce, it's Polish. — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:48, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
Moved to the right section. Cchan199206 16:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Gak! So sorry! T.T — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:25, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Delete non encyclopedic. JamesBurns 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

After discounting the anonymous and extremely new user votes and the probable troll vote, all the remaining voters either abstained or said "delete". However, two of those gave confusing comments that the article should be "deleted and redirected" to Jerry Griffin. Reviewing the two articles, I find them to be related. The Dr. Jerry Griffin version appears to have been created by a cut-and-paste move by the anonymous author of Jerry Griffin (who has made no additional edits to either article since).

The only verified fact in the article is the statement of authorship. The book does not have a separate Wikipedia article (and with a current Amazon sales ranking of 1,205,305 probably should not). Reviewing the criteria for inclusion of biographies, I can not convince myself that an author of a single book of this stature (and with no other claim to notability or other mitigating circumstances) meets the recommended threshold for inclusion.

I am going to call this decision as a "delete". Further, I am going to consider the Jerry Griffin version as "an associated sub-page" and delete it as well. Rossami (talk) 23:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Jerry Griffin

Non-notable, vanity page. 128.122.89.119 20:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (users 2nd edit -Scimitar 20:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC))

  • Abstain. I think this might be deleted as unverifiable; I haven't been able to confirm anything except that a Dr. Jerry Griffin exists. However, the reasons listed (notability, vanity) are invalid if the information contained is true) --Scimitar 20:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Really? If someone puts out a book through a novelty press and gives a copy to the Library of Congress, that makes then notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? 128.122.129.4 22:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No, but his was not a vanity press book. It was published by a division of Greenwood Press (a publisher with over 18,000 titles in print) and is still listed by major booksellers 14 years later (it was released in 1991). The vast majority of books never make it beyond the second printing. I think that makes him notable enough for a short article (which this one is not). DS1953 00:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK. 128.122.89.119 15:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep if someone coudl please verify this Yuckfoo 20:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: searching on the Library of Congress catalog it seems his name is actually Gerald R. Griffin [12]. They have two copies of his book Machiavelli on Management. David | Talk 22:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Jerry Griffin which has essentially the same content, His book Machiavelli on management : playing and winning the corporate power game is listed on almost all the major book sellers (Amazon, Barnes & Noble) which leads me to a weak keep for the Jerry Griffin article but the article needs to be much more encyclopedic (i.e.,, cut out all the fuzzy stuff like writing a ballad). DS1953 22:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page. Hohokus 23:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User's 26th edit, 9 of which are VFD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 22:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Jerry Griffin.Capitalistroadster 01:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Spotteddogsdotorg 14:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 21:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kanahoe's Law

Speedied twice. Non-notable "law" invented by some guy who uses a forum. — Gwalla | Talk 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete "One of thousands of avatars" shows him to be non-notable, and an allegedly humorous rule in a web-forum is just the tiniest little bit short of being encyclopedic. Besides, it will look narcissistic if we keep this.--Scimitar 20:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Godwin's law this is not. If it gains notability we can add it in later. --CVaneg 21:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page. If we keep it we may want to all make up "laws" and stick them on here. Hohokus 23:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable or encyclopedic. DS1953 00:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Scimitar. --FCYTravis 00:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Wikipedia's Law. -- BD2412 talk 01:17, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity law. JamesBurns 03:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 19:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BR/PPSS Hill

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. A hill near a service station, near Ballymacash Road. No context given: doesn't say what town, state, or even country this hill resides in. Does not establish notability. — Gwalla | Talk 20:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Do we need every damn whatever the hell this thing is, from God knows were here? No! Hohokus 23:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of importance is presented. --Dcfleck 14:36, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. -- BD2412 talk 14:45, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 22:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sewers

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. A forested area...somewhere. Lacks any sort of context. Does not establish notability. — Gwalla | Talk 20:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless it is made more encyclopedic. The article seems to actually be quite interesting, but without basic information such as where said place is located, it's not viable to be kept on the Wikipedia. --Sn0wflake 21:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just one of, oh, several billion places in the world where bored teenagers hang out. --Dcfleck 15:09, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. -- BD2412 talk 14:45, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 19:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Army Park

A park in Northern Ireland. Does not establish notability. — Gwalla | Talk 20:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN. David | Talk 22:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Do we need every single little park in every single country here? No! Hohokus 23:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. This could be a mere ad, but just expand it if you try any google hits or something. --SuperDude 03:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (which does not, of course, disallow merging.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marshall Middle School

Insignificant school or no significance provided See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. - CobaltBlueTony 21:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hooray another one not intimidated by attempts to subvert vfd. Super Strong Reinforced delete for a non-notable school.Dunc|☺ 21:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Abstain, I forgot this issue hadn't been solved yet... people are sure taking their time. --Sn0wflake 21:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Frankly it's as close to a solution as it's going to get (merge small articles, break out large ones). Kappa 22:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I mean a solution in which people actually come to terms instead of endlessly fighting over the subject and using reference pages to vote. But that seems unlikely at the moment, sadly. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 01:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 21:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schoolcruft. Stub with no real usable information. Hermione1980 22:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. RickK 23:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with San Diego City Schools. JYolkowski // talk 00:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It might take twenty years to improve, but that doesn't matter at all. CalJW 00:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:SCH to the district page. The text there is totally confusing. Complaints about the site being small and that the school is being built but it also seems to exist. Clearly not an article worthy of keeping without a lot of work. Vegaswikian 02:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with San Diego City Schools. See WP:SCH for good advice on how to avoid these pointless and inconclusive school deletion discussions. Briefly, the merge operation could be done without resort to VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:06, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, especially the last two under "Keep". Unfocused 04:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We know all the arguments now, and WP:SCH seems to have failed. --Carnildo 05:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Da 'Sco Mon 08:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep SchmuckyTheCat 15:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH 16:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another non-article which receives a lot of support due to general dogmatic principles rather than analysis of the specific subject at hand. Indrian 04:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. A small hint might be in order here. In May and June the rate of nomination of school articles for deletion tripled, with two editors accounting for two-thirds of all deletion listings--in effect, those editors by themselves were responsible for the massive increase. Such an aggressive campaign tends to put one question foremost in people's minds: do schools belong on Wikipedia? And this is the answer. Yes, schools belong on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course schools belong on wikipedia, but every school? Hardly as far as I am concerned. I believe you, at least, are reading the articles and not just following dogma, but I believe many keep votes are registered by users who are not taking into account any specifics. Indrian 08:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. There may be one or two voters to whom that is true (I don't recognise every name here) but if you look at those voting keep at least three four of us have not only looked at this article but improved it. Most others voting have worked on other school articles in the recent past. I am not seeing evidence of robotic voting here, it looks like a heterogeneous bunch of people who do happen to sincerely care about these articles and work to improve them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 18:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please and see wikipedia:schools/arguments we dont need to do this daily Yuckfoo 16:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-genocide group

Neologism. 3 Google hits. Expanding it to anything larger than a dictdef is likely going to have POV problems. --Xcali 21:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As far as I can see there are none to put on the list anyway. David | Talk 22:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The definition is wrong anyway. Genocide is not an act of omitting certain groups, it is the act of wiping them out; therefore a pro-genocide group would be any party that favours genocide (for instance, some of the more radical Hutu parties in Rwanda in 1994). In any case, all non-notable neologism's go to the wiki-graveyard. --Scimitar 23:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. -- BD2412 talk 01:16, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete, definition attempt of non-notable neologism. -- Infrogmation 02:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism Kaibabsquirrel 01:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. --Ian Pitchford 20:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who would you include here anyway? The old Nazi party? Maybe the janjaweed? Whoever gets put on here, there would be tremendous POV issues. Firebug 03:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of cognitive therapy

Yet another made up "church". Only two google hits that aren't from its own site. --Xcali 21:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not only is the church not notable, the article has no usefull information about the church. If anywhere , it should go into wiktionary under Church of Cognitive therapy creed (which I don't think it should) (unsigned edit by 68.186.248.15)

  • Comment: this is the first edit by 68.186.248.15 --Xcali 22:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of a handful of churches dedicated to mixing Jesus with mari-ju-aunica - non-notable silliness. -- BD2412 talk 01:15, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising/promo. The entire text is a cut-and-paste from the church website [13]. JamesBurns 03:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hell, it's spam, really. -- Captain Disdain 20:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering Computing Center

It's a computer lab, just like any other one at thousands of other colleges and schools. --Xcali 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Labcruft. --FCYTravis 22:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. DS1953 00:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no need to start having articles about every detail at a university. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game Comedies

Non-notable fanfic. 3 google hits --Xcali 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just doesn't register on the radar, I'm afraid. -- Captain Disdain 20:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. sjorford →•← 12:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mission Inn

Non-notable pub/restuarant in un-named american city. Delete Kiand 09:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I nominated so much stuff that day I forgot to list on the main VFD page. Which I'm now doing. --Kiand 21:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, the articles been dragged up a lot in the past few minutes alone, so I'm changing to a 'meh' (neutral, no vote...) Googling originally didn't even get me enough info to say where this place was, btw... --Kiand 22:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, no, I vote that it stays. The Mission Inn has long history, is architecturally significant, comparable to the Winchester house as an accomplishment of cumulative vernacular (if you want to call it that), occupies a whole city block in downtown Riverside CA, and essentially IS downtown Riverside CA. Charles Willard Moore devotes several astonished pages to its complications in his "LA Observed".

--Lockley 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, being a "National Historic Landmark Hotel" sounds notable, also Lockley above is quite persuasive. Kappa 21:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable landmark—Wahoofive (talk) 22:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it looks too cool to delete, and it has a decent article to boot. SECProto 22:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - greatly improved from when the VfD notice was posted. DS1953 00:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable heritage listed site in notable metropolitan area namely Los Angeles. It is now a good article too.Capitalistroadster 01:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emre Akbas

Non-notable graduate student from Turkey in comp. sci. The page serves as little more than a bare outline sketch of a CV. jglc | t | c 21:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Patent vanity --Xcali 22:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. Kappa 22:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. A student with apparently no significant accomplishments in life. Not even really an article, just a list of majors he's had. — Gwalla | Talk 23:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) — Gwalla | Talk 22:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki calendar

Looks kind of not very notable. Yes, it has to do with wikis, but not everything wikirelated is notable. --Conti|✉ 22:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep You 19:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable software feature. Wikipedia is a wiki that's an encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of wikis. — Gwalla | Talk 00:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno Bronosky

This is user's first entry or edit. A Google search reveals three hits for Bronosky's name - one of which is a comment on an amazon.com review (not of his own publication), another of which is from his own blog. I cannot find any publications under his name, nor do I recognise it (and I'm somewhat into philosophy). jglc | t | c 22:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. --Xcali 22:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of Bruno's writings aren't commercially available (yet). Would this article be more acceptable if I created an archive of his public-domain works?

  • It's a nice thought, but I don't think so - he hasn't achieved notoriety to the degree where people would be wondering about him and trying to learn more about him on wikipedia. When and if he achieves a level of academic notability to warrant his works being considered substantial, he belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.231.163 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Think of it this way: I can write as many papers as I want, and put them in the public domain. Until they are accepted, however, with some level of academic accolade (or perhaps notoriety), they are in no way different than the writings of any other student. jglc | t | c 22:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So one needs to publish works commercially to be accepted and/or relevant? Need I remind you that this very wiki is noncommercial and open-source? Sometimes the most pertinent gems of wisdom are noncommercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.231.163 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • He doesn't have to be published. He has to become well-known; not even well-known by a strict standard, but certainly more well-known than not at all. jglc | t | c 22:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • One needs to do something notable in order to be notable. He hasn't. Delete. Ben-w 00:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- doesn't appear to be notable. (A comment on the conversation above: It's not the role of Wikipedia to inform the public about what should be deemed relevant -- indeed, such an approach would be a clear violation of the NPOV policy -- but rather to report what is already considered to be relevant or noteworthy. Furthermore, if Bronosky is already notable and deserving of an article of his own, the article certainly doesn't tell us why. Neither does Google; searching for '"Bruno Bronosky" philosopher' yields a total of zero hits; replace 'philosopher' with 'philosophy', and you get a single hit, to an audio Bible... where someone named Bruno Bronosky is not an author but a random internet reviewer. Of course, Google isn't necessarily the best research tool for something like this, so maybe he is notable... but until he is shown to be, I'm going to have to vote for deletion here, and I'd imagine the same goes for most of us here.) -- Captain Disdain 20:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Raynor

A thirteen-year-old amateur wrestler. Vanity? CDC (talk) 22:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - NN dross. Smileyrepublic 23:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Spotteddogsdotorg 14:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • strong delete vanity, nonsense. jglc | t | c 16:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brunkard

Geneaology/etymology of a name; no evidence of further notability. CDC (talk) 22:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decimate inc.

Non-notable band; website reveals a demo CD, a few MP3s, and that they're looking for a lead singer, which seems a bad sign for their immediate prospects of becoming encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 22:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete just more amateur bandcruft. jglc | t | c 16:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Laughlin

No evidence of notability. CDC (talk) 22:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Vegaswikian 06:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, likely vanity. Created by User:Barry Laughlin. Only page that links here is the redirect Barry Laughlin & Asociados (IMO should be deleted too), created by the same user, original with the same text as the Barry Laughlin article. -- Infrogmation 07:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sick lax

This appears to be a neologism which draws 14 unique Google hits, not all of which related to lacrosse. Delete until this expression comes into popular use. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: The correct term is "stix trix". "Lax" is the term for lacrosse. "sick lacrosse" makes no sense. At the very least, the page should be moved. And if you are interested, a good site for stix trix is here. DS1953 02:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable neologism. JamesBurns 03:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was rename to Beer can pyramid. Sr13 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beeramid

Beeramid was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-10. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beeramid (old).
Beeramid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no reliable sources, neologism, etc Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Neologism. CIreland 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. DarkAudit 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Culturally significant. The Simpsons episode is from 1993, so this is hardly a neologism. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete 1993 is not ancient Rome: a slang term used since then and barely ever since except in one episode of an American television program is not notable. --Charlene 06:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Culturally significant, well sourced -Drdisque 06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • rename per Uncle G -Drdisque 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per said above. - GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - completely culturally INsignificant. Mentioned in one episode of the Simpsons - big deal. - fchd 12:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Long-established concept, and hence not a neologism. Particularly relevant to those people who can build an icosahedron with thread and drinking straws. My father doesn't drink beer, but he has been known to build a pyramid out of empty soft drink cans. --Eastmain 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and rename, per Uncle G's comments. --Eastmain 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the title is a neologism. But fixing that doesn't require an administrator to hit a delete button. That just involves ordinary editors using ordinary editing tools, in this case the rename button to rename the article to beer can pyramid, the more common name for this thing, and the name under which one will find things such as the Syracuse Herald-American article from 1976-06-27 discussing people's attempts to break records for the tallest beer can pyramid. I encourage DarkAudit, CIreland, Charlene.fic, and Richard Rundle to take more than just the article's title into consideration. Uncle G 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Cites sources. Noteable. Also very prominent in society. Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The sources are the Urban Dictionary and the reference to the Simpsons episode. Needs a lot more for me to change my mind. Still can't see where the significance of this that makes it worthy of an article is. - fchd 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Uncle G's proposed Rename is fine by me as well. References for that will be easy to find (any activity that qualifies for a Guiness record-holder is inherently notable). bd2412 T 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename Per Uncle G.
  • Keep. Uncle G has changed my opinion on things once again. RFerreira 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Uncle G, although remove the UrbanDictionary link. Ford MF 07:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & Rename per Uncle G. AgentPeppermint 05:22, 19 May 2007 (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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Tillett

Appears to be completely non-notable. A google search yields only 4 results, and the name is not found on IMdB. The first result on google can be ruled out as being related to this article: the age doesn't make sense considering the fact that this guy was born in 1984. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. DS1953 00:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted, substub of little use. -- Infrogmation 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcela Bovio

Delete an article on a member of a (local) band that we don't have an article. humblefool® 23:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 22:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Yazbak

No potential to become encyopedic. The guy isn't notable. His names as reported in the article is brings up about a 10th of the number of google hits my lectures rack up an when you consider that the artilce strongly suggests his activities are mostly webased this is significant. See also wikipedia is not a soapbox.Geni 23:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • strong keep: As a prominent advocate for vaccine safety, the article on Dr. Yazbak should be kept. His works are routinely cited by other advocates. His courage in standing up to the political power of the medical establishment also makes him noteworthy as a whistleblower. Ombudsman 00:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While there were only 810 hits on Google when I put in Yazbak and autism, the quality of the citations was generally pretty good, IMO. I think people who read his views may want some information on him. That is what an encyclopedia is good for. DS1953 01:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
acording to Web of knowlage the largest number of times his one papers has been cited is 12. that isn't very good.Geni 16:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per DS1953. Xoloz 03:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per DS1953. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. There are some POV issues, but there's no reason for deletion. Dystopos 22:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. jglc | t | c 16:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.